i was just making the point that not everyone agrees with everything the church teaches, or do we individually pick and choose who is right and who is wrong by whether they agree with us or not?

No indeed, it's not picking favourites..., or opponents.

Tom dragged atonement theory clashes, top priority in his own mind, into this thread, without saying so...: in the process he said that Dedication's "dying to sin is not something we do,...we accept Christ's death as ours" was "untrue" and "cannot be". That was most unfortunate..., if not out of line, since he didn't disagree with her point, but the atonement theory he perceived she was using - but she wasn't concerned about atonement arguments!

I mentioned church issues, though, cause this forum has rules about supporting and discussing, if not challenging, but not trashing church positions. Arguing over atonement theories is fine, on his own thread, but not attacking, or appearing to attack, the heart of faith's spiritual death to sin preceding our rebirth, as expressed by another.

I know we tread a fine line, on this forum, but Tom went over the top there - unitentionally, as I said before.

doesnt the title of the thread and atonement theories go together?

Colin, I don't see that this in any way responds to my question. Here's my question. You see the following two things to be true:

a.Christ had to die to satisfy a legal requirement in order for God to be able to pardon sin.

b.The wicked do not die as the consequence of sin (not only, at any rate) -- an "extra" action on the part of God causes their death.

It seems to me these two things logically go together. If the second death involves an arbitrary action on the part of God, and Christ death is the payment for our sin, then it should involve an arbitrary action on the part of God as well.

I was wondering if you had thought of the connection between these two things, and, if so, which is the chicken and which the egg (if you've considered this).



I've got no idea what you're talking about. I told you I didn't follow what you are saying. Do you think the statement "No wonder you picked it out to question it!" is somehow helpful in describing something I said I didn't follow?



Colin, this is too cryptic. I see nothing in this whole page that's highlighted, except for some comments by teresa. Please copy and paste a quote of something if you want to ask me about it.



I've asserted on a number of occasions that my theology on the atonement, as far as I'm aware, is the same as Waggoner's. You've never disagreed with me on this. Ellen White said Waggoner could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. So if I'm in agreement with Waggoner on this subject, then I'm on better ground than those who disagree with Waggoner, it seems to me.

Furthermore, the official SDA position is the following:



Notice that the official position of the SDA church is that Christ provided the only means of atonement for sin. Didn't you say this is unBiblical? So aren't *you* in disagreement with this?

Otoh, I looked at the official statement carefully, and didn't see a single thing I disagree with.



This is confusing. I firmly pointed out that D was affirming the church's view of the atonement? Where? How?



I don't recall commenting on this. Would you please quote something I said? Again, regarding how the SDA church views, I agree with the statement in our fundamental beliefs.



I assume you are talking about where I said that her assertion that we have to accept that something is counted. It seems to me you have this exactly backward! *She* is the one who said that unless a person did this, they couldn't walk in newness of life. I said nothing speaking against *her* experience. I don't see how you could possible conclude this.

If you would quote something I said when making accusations like this, it would be a lot easier to know what you have in mind.



Don't you say that the saying that Christ is an atonement for sin is unBiblical? So you're not sharing the church's position, it seems to me. On the other hand, as I stated, I agree with the official church statement.

Thankfully the church has not set as a condition upon a person's experiencing newness of life accepting that something is counted.

Regarding the rest of what you wrote, please provide some evidence to support allegations like this. Specifically quote something I said. I think you've being very unfair here. In my remarks regarding things I've disagreed with, I've quoted the exact words said, and have tried my best to direct my comments to the theories being presented, and not to personalities. I ask you to extend the same courtesy.

Colin, I didn't say anything remotely resembling this. This is very unfair. Please quit doing this!

If you want to comment on something I said, quote it! As far as I can tell, you're just making stuff out of your head, and randomly accusing me of things. Simply repeating something I've never said doesn't change reality.

I already pointed out to you I didn't say this. Please, Colin, be fair in your comments. Quote, then comment.

Colin, are you purposely misquoting me? I don't see how you can think it's OK to do this. I already corrected you on this.



What I said cannot be true is, "We need to accept the fact that Christ credits His death to our sin as our death to sin, or we will never experience 'living in newness of life' with Him."

I did not say "we accept Christ's death as ours was 'untrue' and 'cannot be'".

I already pointed this out to you. I cannot at all understand why you would misquote me like this. I can understand the first time, as an oversight, but after you've already been corrected on it, to repeat the same misquote again -- I don't know understand why you would do this. Perhaps you just aren't paying attention. I don't think this is something you would do intentionally.

Regardless, please stop!



When you don't quote things, it's hard to know what you're talking about. I disagreed with her point that "We need to accept the fact that Christ credits His death to our sin as our death to sin, or we will never experience 'living in newness of life' with Him." It seems obvious to me that this is a statement involving the atonement.



Colin, I've been affirming that I support the church's position. On not one occasion have I on this forum (nor anywhere else) said that the church's official position on the atonement (or any any other doctrine) is wrong, nor have I, in any way, challenged, let alone "trashed," an officially stated position.

You shouldn't make accusations like this without any supporting evidence. Also, if you're going to make specific accusations about things that were said, you should quote directly the thing that was said.

It boggles my mind that there are people who do not understand this. This is common sense and common decency.



Again, I never said anything remotely resembling this. I've got no clue what you're talking about, and will continue having no clue unless or until you quote something I said.



How? In saying what?

Do you think you've gone over the line?

i am a devout believer in the investigative judgment. i firmly believe that every thought, word and deed is faithfully recorded and if not faced here and now and repented of it will be faced in the wrong resurrection.

i realize we can get caught up in the moment, but it seems to me there is far too little meditating on the law to see how deep it goes and how easy it is to break its spirit.

certain readings of ellen whites really helps in this area.

But that is exactly the point you challenged me on at the very start of this thread.

In my study of Romans 6 where our baptism symbolizing our dying to sin through Christ BECAUSE Christ took our sins upon Himself and died OUR death in our place, and by coming to cross we veiw what OUR sin has done, and we unite ourselves to Christ, thus we RECKON, consider, count ourselves dead to sin, because of Christ's death. It's not us who did the dying but Christ in our place. And THUS WE RECKON, consider, live as, surrender ourselves, as dead to sin. We arise in newness of life, we LIVE in Christ and count ourselves dead to sin.
Yet sin will still harass us. Thus we are admonished, not to let sin reign in our mortal bodies, for we are to count ourselves dead to sin.

You challenged that REPEATEDLY.
Now all of a suddent you call "foul"
You are NOT being fair!
YOU have taken phrases of what I've said and given them different meanings.

A case in point is the discussion of the serpent in the wilderness where I pointed out that the symbol of the serpent MEANT sin -- it represented Christ becoming sin for us, taking the curse for us.
Christ Himself IS NOT THE SERPENT.
Satan is the serpent.

By Christ taking the serpentine poison upon Himself, taking OUR SINS our sinful nature and dying the death that belonged to us, --as scripture says "became the curse for us" -- HE GIVES US HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS and His LIFE -- a new life in Him!
It was by believing this that we can be healed and rised to newness of life, etc.

You then come on with a big discussion that that's wrong, we need to look to Jesus for healing -- making it sound like I wasn't talking about looking to Jesus for forgiveness and healing. What was WRONG was the impression you created that I'm just talking about inconsequential details and not looking to Christ.
You also went on and on that we don't have to understand the atonement in order to have newness of life.
What -- we don't have to understand that Christ took OUR SINS, AND DIED our death to understand about His character and how to have newness of life?

I'm sorry Tom -- but you are very hard to discuss anything with.

First you say that "sacrificial blood" was not needed for God to forgive sins, you challenge the concept that Christ died our death to sin and we now consider ourselves dead to sin and alive in Christ.
Now all of sudden you cry foul because I ask:

"Are you agreeing with Tom who disagrees that we account ourselves dead to sin and alive in Christ, because Christ died our death, and rose again to give us that new life.
What does it mean to "look to Jesus our Savior" if all there is at the cross is a "demonstration" of love, IF it really wasn't needed to forgive sin?"


Your statement:


You cry FOUL -- yet that statement you made above is foul-- you weren't "just pointing out something" --
You have been challenging the whole concept of the SUBSTITUTIONARY death of Christ all along.

Please don't think saying
"I believe it as so-and so says it"
answers anything --
Because what I read in many of those passages is often very different from points you are making when you use your own words. (I'm talking particularly about passages by EGW)

And by the way --
Did you know there are also many "new age" "Christians" --people who experience "newness of life" who don't believe in Christ's substitutionary death. They think of the cross as a quantum leap for humanity into a "higher consciousness" of the "divine". They are VERY LOVING and gentle and kind (I know because I know people who are very involved in New age concepts and spirit related healing) But does that mean it is the true "newness of life in Christ"?

Does it matter that we understand these things?

So are you saying we can "rise to newness of life in CHRIST" without accepting Christ's death to our sins?

I'm not talking about merely living a decent life. I'm talking about being JUSTIFIED (forgiven and credited with Christ's merits and righteousness, being counted as Sons and daughters of God) thus we know we are set apart for a life of sanctification (a life of holy living in Christ) This changes our whole outlook on sin and our status with God.

do you know that if you started out letting everyone know what your concerns are that we could all start off on the same page?

you did the same thing on the "grace" thread.

but when you seem to be addressing the same point that others are and then make assumptions based on their responses to what they believe the discussion is about how can there be any understanding or agreement?

i dont know what the moral influence theory is, and if i wanted to know i would do my own research, thank you very much, but accusing someone of it did not make me believe the accusation was true. i know the game. rb plays it very well. it comes from the enemy and not our holy God.

so, please, please, when you come across something that concerns you please let others know what your concern is first before starting in with the "sermonettes".

this is probably not a good example but something like, "the new age yada, yada, how is that different from what you are believing?"

i know people who claim to be christian, in the sda church, who also behave that way. until they go after a person. then they break every commandment in the book.

aside from that, i dont know how well you know "your" people, but the new-agers i know really do want to be good people, but underneath there is an emptiness. that is where we can present Jesus who will fill that emptiness.