What of the excerpts from the chapter on salvation that I quoted? It's very easy to put various meanings into the key words of the official belief statements, giving it another meaning than the detail which is in the chapter. What of the detail I drew from chapter 9 of the fundamental beliefs?

Yes, indeed! Thanks for that point, Rosangela.

As I pointed out in my response to Rosangela, her point doesn't apply in my case, because there is no context for D's phrase "Christ's substitutionary death" as there is in the case for Prescott's sermon. If Dedication meant by saying that I don't really believe in Christ's substitutionary death that I don't knew really believe in what she means by it, I would agree, and, similarly, had I been quoting from a sermon by someone who is avowed proponent of penal substitution, I would agree with the point that I would be as out of line in doing so as Rosagela was in claiming to agree with Prescott's sermon.

But I didn't do this.

I don't know of anyone who doesn't affirm Christ's substitutionary death. I'm sure there are people like this, I just don't know of any (within SDAism, I speaking of).

Again, I hasten to point out, that it's not necessary to believe in penal substitution to believe in Christ's substitutionary point. The author of the Christus Victor article also affirms his belief in Christ's substitutionary death.

The principle here is really simple. To affirm Christ's substitutionary death means simply that Christ died in my place. Or, to say it another way, had Christ not suffered my death, I would have had to.

I believe this 100%. Therefore I believe in Christ's substitutionary death.

i dont believe i would be considered an impartial judge, here.



i had already responded to this before it was deleted,#113830.

Which post?



Which post? I can't see where you did this.

Regardless, what's in the chapter is not a part of our official beliefs. The fundamental beliefs statements represent the official position of the church.

Here's an explanation as to why this is important, in a manner I think you'll agree with. Consider the fundamental belief on the nature of Christ.



Now it could be that the author of this FB is prelapsarian (I'm not saying he is; this is just for illustration purposes) and his explanation of the chapter in the book might have a prelapsarian flavor to it. That doesn't mean that postlapsarianism is the official position of the church. The statement of belief is purposely vague, allowing for both postlapsarian and prelapsarian interpretations (since prelapsarianism has entered our church).

Similarly there are different positions regarding the atonement. As I've repeatedly pointed out, there are many credentialed ministers who share the view of the atonement that I hold. If there were an official church position to which these were contrary, they wouldn't be allowed to present their positions from the pulpit.

No, Tom, no need for sermon scripts for Rosangela to be right! Just the words and meanings of Dedication's Bible study, here!! It isn't news to you that your separate thread on atonement expresses a meaning of substitution quite different to the meaning presented by Dedication on her thread here, is it?! I think it's news to her.

"Expiation" is in the voted statement and is indeed confusing without an accurate definition. The chapter itself notes all three words used in English Bibles: "atonement", "propitiation", "expiation". I think only the Handbook of SDA Theology actually attempts to try to sort them out - expiation and propitiation, but am not sure even that book fully succeeds.

Essentially - for Bible study, God's holy wrath against sin is in one word but not in the other. Also, both were viewed in Bible times as man appeasing his gods with bigger and bigger sacrifices, especially children - to the distate of many. Rom 3:25 says that God appeased his own wrath against sin by the sacrifice of his own Son - whom he raised up again from the dead, too!!! That would have rocked the known world! - if anyone was open to God's truth...Nowadays it's proportionally huge material sacrifices we compare God's gift to.

There's nothing in your reply to me today that I could take as an answer to any of my questions, but I'll be polite and put down a few comments here.

My comment about SOP was that you weren't letting Dedication operate without it or without reference to it. This thread is a matter of Bible study, at her discretion, and you didn't notice that.

We keep returning to your difficulty with her sentence, because that sentence pervades her study. She didn't think you could possibly miss her point, so your "difficulty" understanding her, set off alarm bells. This issue can hopefully now be sorted out and clarified on the atonement thread you've started. Her study here is how we experience living faith, not the nature of the atonement.

The study here is Rom 3,6,7 I think, not Rom 5. Differences in other areas, Tom, are of course for another thread: your position on Rom 6:4 is not well spelled out, to my recollection.

Remember this? It expresses Rom 6:4.


Oh dear! You're not familiar with this concept? You still having difficulty with this truth...Remember the Apostle Paul's mention of our "old man", our sinful nature, and that "we" are crucified in Christ's humanity? By faith we participate in that crucifixion..., remember? Christ's cross is where and how we die to sin, since he died for us, for sin and to sin, culminating a lifetime of obedience in rejection of sinfulness, which he'd assumed to be made flesh.

That's the only way to switch our minds from sin to agape, by our own choice and God's Spirit. Rom 4:25 says that justification follows dying for & to sin: they are separate worlds, sin and righteousness, and they are separated by spiritual death of the sinful nature by baptism into Christ's death, and the rest of what's in Rom 6:4.

You may have mentioned once or twice in these 18 pages that you believe we die to sin but you haven't been saying much at all about it. It would appear not to be a favourite topic of yours.

Penalty of sin...: so you think sin has its own penalty? You just don't think God has his own for it, too? What is a holy God to do with justice then on judgement day?

I don't really care about Lucifer!!! That's God's own history, and your favourite quotes merely say that God is fair - we aren't told, and we don't need to know, about what sacrifice would have been offered for Lucifer had he chosen to repent: What of my question a little while ago, on this thread, of what Michael is and why? We know who he is...: the pre-incarnate Son of God, but what is he, etc?

You may not rely purely on officially voted statements for your church beliefs, Tom, as that is completely vague. These are the excerpts I quoted.





A church and Bible belief isn't defined till it is spelled out, in the chapter itself: it is a little inadequate to agree with the voted statement but not dare open the chapter to examine the rest, as you have done consistently, on this thread! While we each differ with some details here and there, on belief No.9 you depart from the detail quite significantly, don't you? It doesn't matter how many theologians of the church, looking after a church or lecturing or both, share your view, the church is uncomfortable about them, last I heard.

I roped in "the church" at all, because, even without church approval, this forum prides itself in defending and upholding Adventist conservative theology. That does put you in a grey area, on this forum, and, in the meaning of the substitution of Christ, a theological visitor: Rodriguez' Bible answers in the Adventist World a little while ago on the meaning of Christ's death contrasted sharply, if only one or two critical points, with your preferred view.

I appreciate you're seeking to find support for your alternative round here, indeed now on your own thread - thank you! - but not everyone is aware of that. Also, MM couldn't get you to agree with the Rodriguez study mentioned above, so, on this forum you are a friend of Adventism on the atonement issue.

Oh, I've pasted those EGW quotes about legal requirements of Christ's death on to your atonement thread.

from the Christus Victor thread.


why dont we take this as a legitimate question. it is only exaperating if we dont know how to answer it. but questions like this should drive us to prayer and study. if our position is right then we can only come to a deeper understanding of that position.

in the earthly sanctuary a victim was slain and the blood sprinkled.....obviously, as tom points out, our Messiah did not collect His own blood and take it to heaven....

does that mean that God has the same kind of wrath as those invented gods? was God angry and ready to fly off in different directions, so-to-speak? what picture of God do we have in this particular picture?

This just agrees with what I said. If she wishes to assert that I don't agree with Christ's substitutionary death as she understands it, I'm the first to agree that I don't, nor did I claim to. This is very different than Rosagela's case, who did claim to agree with Prescott, which establishes my point.

Let's try putting the shoe on the other foot. Suppose I ask you, on the CV thread, I made the statement that you don't really believe in Christ's substitutionary death, because you disagree with the author. Would you agree to that?



No it doesn't. I'll treat this in a separate post, but asserting this is doing some serious eisegesis.

I'll once again point out that the Eastern Orthodox church has never held this view. Why not? Because it severed from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm developed it. This isn't evidence, necessarily, that the idea isn't true, as God could have revealed a truth to Anslem that hadn't been seen before, but it is evidence that the idea was not believed at the time the Eastern Orthodox church split, which was in the eleventh century. The Eastern Orthodox church has argued that the church father's didn't teach this idea, because if they had, it would have been a part of their (the Eastern Orthodox church) beliefs.



There's no evidence whatsoever that this verse was understood in this way, nor that this concept even existed at that time.



! Really? Let's take a look. You asked:



to this I wrote:



Now how can you assert that this does not answer your question?

I'll continue later.