if i can be tolerated to play "mediator" here, por please. i believe dedications point is that "accusing" her of following anselm, i dont remember exactly how you stated it, is the same as the accusations she is throwing at you.

it does rather throw one off guard who doesnt know what anselm taught, not to mention doesnt even know who he was. you have given tiny bits of pieces here and there about this issue but it really doesnt help because you are the one with all the pieces, if that makes sense.

i get that you are rather well studied in these different atonement theories and persons involving them. i dont mind admitting im completely ignorant in this area and am definitely not on a level playing field here with you.

so, perhaps some history about this particular theory and when it came to be? or pointed in a direction that spells it out....well i dont know how this particular problem could be worked out but hopefully that it is a problem will be recognized.

Yes, Elle, it's a beautiful truth!
That's what I wanted to share.
It's an integral part of justification and the springboard for a life of sanctification.

I would love to discuss it more fully, but feel it's impossible here.

Thanks! God bless.

Of all places, here should be the place to be able to share these beautiful truths which would help each other grow. But I know what you mean. It's so very sad that it is hard and quite impossible to progress.

Tom, unless you respond to this post of mine with some semblance of understanding it, I shan't be speaking with you on this thread anymore, either.



Nevermind that she wasn't quoting Ellen White for support, such support as you find you can't live without, and that she was simply commenting on her own Bible study, after spending time reading her own Bible, the clause of hers that you pulled out and queried has the answer to your confusion in its very own sentence.

Her point that confused you is so obvious a point, and is understood using common sense in understanding the English language in ordinary usage, that your "problem" with it automatically raises questions of how you understand Christ's substitutionary death for us, if you don't discard - but you don't discard it - "substitution" completely. Thus, that you pick out that clause, and questioned repeatedly also its sentence, raised eye brows for Dedication and me.

Your understanding of substitution of Christ for us differs with us and the church on the penal judgement of sin issue, doesn't it? That fundamental belief on atonement, substitution, and salvation you quoted isn't accurate enough, being the voted statement - the detail is in the chapter that goes with it! You tried to get away with quoting the flexibly interpretable voted statement, while you disagree fundamentally with the chapter itself! That we each have problems with some detail in some chapters, if not select voted statements too - like the trinity, is well known to some who come here frequently, but you haven't disclosed your disagreement with penal substitution here, and that's wrong for this discussion.





I won't waste space here on the bits about the ransom Christ paid in God's judgement on sin, and his purchase of the church with his own blood: don't think you agree with the ransom, but you may agree with the purchase; either way, that belongs on your atonement thread, and not here.

The penal substitution of Christ for us in the judgement by God due us, is covered very well in the legal matters raised in these EGW quotes Dedication was kind enough to provide.

Before I leave you with these EGW quotes, I hope I've made clear, for you and Dedication, that I know you believe Christ died for you, but not that he suffered the penalty of sin for you, since you don't believe there is a penalty for sin - just its natural end. To the best of my knowledge, this makes you a theological friend of the SDA church, since Adventism supports, with EGW, penal substitution, despite "The Great Controversy".

Oh, yes, also: you agree then that our old man is crucified with Christ, so we can and do reckon and experience by faith our death to sin in Christ's death? How did you miss this point in what Dedication has posted in her Bible study, such that you found it difficult to understand?.....This does return to the question at the top of this post, but it's where your difference with the SDA soteriology, specifically atonement, first surfaced, and is now in full colour.

Ellen White, here, makes very clear the legal requirement for Christ's death, so that God could forgive his wayward childred. Since you don't like Jesus being separated from his Father at Calvary, she also writes that "the powers of heaven were sundered" by and at the cross: I just thought I'd throw at in as we may not be discussing this here anymore, depending...

Hang on, ladies! I believe it's soon going to be possible...

I believe that if we are in a discussion forum and think that nobody will/should disagree with us, we are in the wrong place. If, after discussing a point, you can't agree with the other person, agree to disagree on that point and go ahead!
I also think it's always a good idea to quote what the other person has actually said.

This whole thread you've been making baseless accusations against me, and others. I've repeatedly begged you, over and over again, to quote things I've said, and base your comments on that, but you refuse to do so, instead just repeating the same falsehoods.

I quoted the following from Fundamental Beliefs #9.



I've affirmed that I agree with this several times. Not only do I agree with this, I think it's well written.

I've quoted the following from the SOP several times:



I agree with this, and believe it is well written as well. It seems to me to express the concept of Christ's sustitutionary death in a way that even a child could understand.

I also started a thread on "Christus Victor" which discusses the same theme.

It seems to me you are being exceedingly unfair. I claim to believe in the substitutionary death of Christ, but you claim I "don't really." Why? Because I disagree with you.

There are millions of Christians who also don't see the substitutionary death of Christ as you do, and your comments would cast them all aside as "not really" believing in the substitutionary death of Christ, despite their claims that they do. This is the same sort of thing that certain groups do against us as Seventh-day Adventists in saying that we claim to be Christians, but we "aren't really."



What I said before is that I believe that in Christ's subsitutionary death. Why should I need to do anything more than this? If I make an accusation against you that you don't believe that Christ is divine, for example, and you say you do, shouldn't I produce some evidence based on what you wrote that you don't? Isn't a sufficient defense for you to simply reiterate that you believe that Christ is divine? Wouldn't quoting a Fundamental Belief and quoting from the SOP be sufficient?



This isn't true at all. I said I believe in Christ's substitutionary death. I take it you'll grant that we understand the terms "Christ's" and "death" the same, so the only term that could be in question is "substitutionary." Clear what this means is that Christ died instead of us. As the SOP put it, "He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His." I believe this is true, and, in believing this, I believe in the substitutionary death of Christ, and I'm doing so without changing the meaning of any terms.

If you take a dictionary, and look up the meanings of each of the words "Christ's substitutionary death," I agree with each word, according to their normal usage, and according to their dictionary definition.

In fact, Tom, you agree with the definition of the words like I agree with some statements of Prescott's sermon. You agree with the form, but not with the idea behind it. It's to this that Dedication is referring.

Colin, you have been misrepresenting my position, and consistently refusing to quote directly things I've said, despite my repeated requests that you do so. You haven't responded to posts 113803, 113804 or 113805. I've responded to every one of your posts. Every time I do so I quote you word for word.

Now, in addition to misrepresenting my position, and refusing to quote me directly, and not responding to my posts, you throw an ultimatum at me as if I were the one who has been acting poorly here. Nevertheless, I will gladly respond to your ultimatum, as I would like to continue our discussions. While there are things we disagree on, your questions and comments I find very helpful in trying to understand things better, and hopefully you will see the light in direct quotations so that so much time wouldn't be wasted in my denying things you're wrongly claiming that I said.



Boy this is a long sentence. Let's split it up.



From this it appears that you are complaining that of my use of the SOP to discuss the issues we are dealing with. I don't know why you think this is a good thing to do. However, if you wish to start a thread where no SOP is used, I'll be happy to join in. I can establish the positions I believe in from Scripture.

However, it's a common thing to quote from the Spirit of Prophecy on this forum, so I did so. I don't know why you would single me out on this. There are certainly people in this forum who quote from the Spirit of Prophecy more than I do.

You'll also notice that, in addition to the Spirit of Prophecy, I've quoted from a whole host of other resources as well, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, and scholars, in addition to other SDA's who were contemporaries of Ellen White. I quote from these sources both to clarify the points I'm making and to support them, as, for example, when discussing the meaning of a word or what the historic position of something was.

This backhand comment of yours in reference to the SOP seems out of place. What do you think? Was it a good comment?



If so, an adequate response would simply be to quote the sentence and point that out. If I was in error on this, so be it. I think Teresa would be a judge of this. If she says I was obtuse, I'll live with that.

I've tried on a number of occasions to drop this. I don't know why it keeps being brought up. Dedication wrote something, which I asked a question on. She responded, and I made a further comment of clarification, and said no more. I didn't attack her position or her Bible Study, but limited my comments to one single point, that point being that dying to sin is not something we do (or need to do, in my first comment). I think both you and she went way overboard in responding to this.

Again, if I was obtuse in my reading of what Dedication wrote, I'll let Theresa be the judge, and apologize if that was the case.



This seems like an odd conclusion to jump to. Why not simply conclude that I missed something that was obvious? That sort of thing happens all the time. People misread things. Why not assume I did that?



This is a cleverly phrased question. You are grouping "us" altogether as if you all believed the same thing, you being Dedication, the church, and yourself. But you don't. In particularly, *your* own beliefs are different from the church's, and different from Dedication's in two significant ways.

First of all, your understanding of Romans 5:12-18, which virtually all Bible scholars recognize as being one of the two key passages in regards to this topic (the other being Romans 3:21-26) is, it seems very likely to me, very different than D's. I would assume you would agree that the corporate aspect of justification is vital to the understanding of righteousness by faith and the atonement. So if you disagree on this vital area, you can hardly fairly group yourselves together, pitted against me. The irony is that my position on this subject is (likely) much closer to yours than yours is to D's.

I can't be 100% sure on this as D has not written at length on this subject, but I have gleaned this from certain of her responses. If I'm wrong on this, I would be delighted, but I believe if she wrote out her understanding of Romans 5:12-18, what you and I believe would be much closer than what you and she believe.

Secondly, your view of Christ is different. You don't see Christ as being fully God the way that Dedication and I do, and according to the official position of the church. Furthermore many would argue (and I'm guessing Dedication would as well) that if one does not hold to the idea that Christ is fully God (including His eternal pre-existence) that one is bound to reach wrong conclusions in regards to the atonement.

So you and she agree in regards to the aspects of the atonement Anselm and Calvin brought to the forefront (i.e. satisfaction and penal), you and I agree in regards to the corporate aspect of the atonement, and she and I agree in terms of Christ's needing to be fully God in order for the atonement to be effected. So we have a bit of a triangle here, with your position (specifically in regards to Christ's divinity) being the strongest outlier. There are many who work in our denomination as fully credentialed ministers who hold the views on the atonement that I hold. The same cannot be said regarding your positions.

I wouldn't bring this up at all if you didn't, as what the church organization does or does not do doesn't change truth, (which you yourself much recognize, or you wouldn't hold the positions on Christ's pre-existence that you do) but you keep bringing this up, which seems very odd, given that your positions are so out of step with the church's official position.

Finally, in regards to your assertion that my position differs with the penal judgment of sin issue of the church, the only official statement I'm aware of that the church has is Fundamental Belief #9, and I'm in agreement with that. Again, there are many fully credentialed ministers who hold the same view of the atonement that I hold.



I've been arguing all along that I disagree with penal substitution. To assert I haven't disclosed this is ridiculous. I've been arguing against the concept the whole time.

An important point in this discussion to note is that it is not necessary to believe in penal substitution to believe in Christ's substitutionary death, and, indeed, there are millions of Christians who, along with me, do this very thing.

Regarding my statement that I believe with the official position of the church, what I did was to go to the official church website, and look at the fundamental beliefs statement, and see if I agreed with that. I do. Wasn't this the appropriate thing to do?



Ok, then I won't waste space by commenting that I started a topic on "Christus Victor" which explains views with which I agree on these things.



Do you want me to comment on these?



This is wrong. I do believe there is a penalty for sin, and that the penalty is death. I believe that Christ, in dying for me, suffered the penalty for sin so that I need not. Once again, I believe that my understanding on this question is the same as Waggoner's, who was strongly endorsed by the Spirit of Prophecy regarding righteousness by faith. As far as I'm aware, my understanding and beliefs regarding righteousness by faith, including this specific question as to what the penalty for sin is, and Christ's suffering that penalty, are the same as his.



I don't exactly what you mean by this. Also you don't provide any evidence for your claim, which, unfortunately, is all to frequent on this forum. When no evidence is provided, there is no evidence to respond to. The conversation becomes reduced to "Did so!" "Did not!" because there is nothing else to say.

So if you wish for some sort of response upon which we can have a dialog, please present some evidence for your contention. Baring that, I will once again affirm that there are many fully credentialed ministers who hold the position of the atonement that I hold, and I agree with the official position of the church on this question.



What does this mean? Please state the meaning in non-theological jargon, but simple language that anyone can understand.



I don't understand what you're saying here.



I think she is misunderstood on this point, and as evidence of this I point to her statements regarding God's pardoning Lucifer. If she understood the issues the way you do, she could not have treated Lucifer's fall the way she did. The legal issues would have been as valid for him as they are for man. In the chapter "It Is Finished" she explains the difference between Lucifer's situation and ours:



Given your understanding of things, it seems to me that what she wrote here, and in the fall of Lucifer, doesn't fit. Hence I don't think she saw things the way you do.

Furthermore she strongly endorsed Waggoner's teachings on righteousness by faith. I don't see how she could do this either if she understood things the way you do, because Waggoner's explanation of things is very different from yours.

It is my opinion that I see things similarly to how Waggoner did, and she did as well.

I could agree with this if she were quoting someone's use of these terms. For example, if she quoted from some known advocate of penal substitution, and I took that phrase in the context of a sermon the person gave, then we would have a similar situation (to you and Prescott) and your point would be well taken. But without this context, the phrase "Christ's substitutionary death" is understood in different ways. As I've pointed out out, there are literally millions of Christians who do not understand this phrase according to the penal substitution idea, yet they affirm Christ's substitutionary death.

Regarding Fundamental Beliefs #9, it uses the word "expiatory" which is frequently, if not routinely, understood as not being penal.