Yes, Sister! Amen.

Evangelism and preaching must cover that whole line of truth first, of course. Dedication has covered enough of that whole line of truth in her study here to make our "old man" known, hasn't she? It's just that Tom appears not to understand our "old man" dying in Christ, but why not is not yet clear, despite his great amount of study and research of Christian teachings.

I don't know what that is. I've repeatedly asked you to quote something. You referred to a post, but I couldn't find it. You didn't give a number. I don't think you have posted at the time I wrote this anyway.

I did the best I could with what I had to work with. I went to the official church web site, read our Fundamental Belief carefully, and found things in it with which you don't agree (name, Christ's being an "atonement for sin") but nothing with which I disagreed.

Certainly I answered your question, and did so to the best of my ability.



I would say, on the contrary, the officially voted statement is *all* we can quote as the *official* position of the church. To go beyond that would be unwarranted, and I feel virtually positive that if you asked a church official about this, this is precisely the response you would get.



I did. I explained why your question was faulty (assuming you, Dedication and the church are all on the same page) and explained where you differ from Dedication, and where you differ from the church, as well as where you and Dedication agree.



I looked for some support of your assertion here, but couldn't find it. You really should heed my advice, Colin, and present some sort of evidence for the claims you make.



This makes me laugh out loud. I could see how you could think I didn't answer your questions to your satisfaction, but to assert that I didn't answer them at all is absurd. On the other hand, there are a number of posts on this thread that I've written that you haven't responded to in any way. This actually happens routinely. I normally just let this go, but it would be considerate on your part, given I've taken the time to respond to you, that you would do the same.

The Melchisedek priesthood differs in personnel, place, sacrificial victim, and time from the Levitcal priesthood, not in purpose, or appointment or authority. I don't make a great thing of it, myself, on this point itself, but Christ is the veil opening the way to the throne room of God. He's likely sitting on his throne next to the Father's and mediating from that position, though by no means fixed there.

His blood is symbolic of his life which justifies our minds and sanctifies our characters, and his scarred hands are symbolic of our death in his death which is spoken of in Rom 7:1-6, particularly v.4. Yes, he pleads, for the devil hasn't given up his tirade yet...!

Altogether as informal as Jesus' life on earth: he is the same in heaven, our one mediator, the man Christ Jesus.

it is not in a form i recognize.

you mean he sees it differently than you do, dont you? and that you dont agree, right?

I haven't commented on this. I've been busy responding to unfounded and unsubstantiated assertions that I don't believe this or I'm trashing the church position, or other rubbish. I would be more than happy (more than words can express!) to keep things on the level of discussing ideas.

Regarding our old man dying in Christ, I stated I agreed with what Waggoner said, which I'll quote here:

Not sure am totally happy to read this: what was incomprehensible about Dedication and my statements on this very point that you found them "difficult to understand" since her study here started, and then you pop up with another quote saying it pretty much the same way, saying you agree with it.

Can you not understand how others say these truths apart from your favourite authors' turn of phrase?

Just re-read your post, Tom: NO YOU HAVE COMMENTED ON THIS BEFORE, saying to Dedication AND to me, time and time again, that you could not understand what we were saying, when we were plainly saying the very same thing you're quoting here from Waggoner. We're not fools to miss the same theme in our statements and your quote, here.

That you gave yourself an uphill ride on this thread and drove us two to threaten to discontinue a disinteresting merry-go-round you were taking us on for your failure to understand an essential truth no matter how we expressed it, appears to be down to you alone.

Just how&why you could not comprehend plain English from us, and then come flying out with joy that you can speak for yourself and reiterate precisely what the two of us have tried our utmost to express to you in words other than you would normally hear in an SDA sermon or book, leaves me with one conclusion. Your "difficulty" understanding us on this point isn't believable, now you've suddenly posted the very same point in virtually the same wording.

Your philosophising, for the sake of your Christus Victor theory, doesn't help.

There remains, ostensibly, still your view of the atonement...

You kept making claims that I never made about disagreeing with things. That's why I asked you to quote something. I kept telling you I hadn't disagreed with anything, but was asking for clarification. I've asked over and over for you to put things in a way I could understand what you were saying.



Yes. I could understand how I would put them myself, and I feel confident I could communicate my thoughts to an intelligent child. I've asked you to do the same thing, to communicate things in a way that's easily understandable, without a bunch of theological jargon.

But if you agree with Waggoner, great! We can let bygones be bygones and just agree!

Regarding the rest of your post, you're still doing the same thing I've repeatedly asked you not do so. Presenting opinions with no quotes. If you want to me to comment on something I've said, please quote something!

Regarding your claim (shouting in bold and caps, no less!) that I hadn't comment on this before, in post #113729 I read:



I not only commented on this before, I specifically said I agreed with Waggoner!

Let's be more careful with our claims.

i put this here because the subject has come up, but if im hi-jacking the intent of this thread it can be moved. i believe there is an "atonement models" thread somewhere that i havent been able to find.

i have a question and i hope all answer-simply would be nice.

for those who believe in penal-substitution, do you believe that eternal death is the punishment for sins, or some kind of inflicted suffering before death?

if substitution alone is a belief would those who believe in it, please give their views.

im just trying to understand where everyone is coming from. i have no view, personally, other than what i understand the bible/sop to say, so im really not out to argue any theory over any other, tho i do have some questions regarding them.

also, since anselm started this whole track in the height of the papal supremacy is that something that should be taken into consideration? i mean the papacy thought they had the right to hurt people.....
Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033 – 21 April 1109) was a Benedictine monk, an Italian medieval philosopher, theologian, and church official who held the office of Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109.

Personally I think we should stick mainly to the scriptures with some help from EGW, not go to Archbishops and "church fathers". I still don't know what Anselm taught, but if it meant he taught eternal punishment as in burning people in purgatory or hell, or the need to inflict punishment upon oneself or others in order to find forgiveness it's obviously WAY off anything I believe.

If this Anselm really understood the meaning of the substitutional death of Christ as dying the penalty demanded by God's law for our transgression of that law, and making atonement for us, and if this understanding greatly influenced the Catholic church -- they would NOT have opposed the reformation. They would not have been teaching that people need to go in purgatory in order for them to pay for their transgression, they would not have had people paying sums of money to pay for their transgressions etc. etc.

What brought on the reformation is that the Catholic church did NOT understand the substitutional death of Christ for sin, through which we have forgiveness of sins. They had a complex system of working to pay off ones sins.


No, then it obviously is not the true understanding. It's a corruption of the true.

I wasn't going to answer -- but since sleep seems to evade me, I thought I'd add a couple comments.

What does it mean that Christ covers our sins with His blood.

Lev.17:14 "for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof:"

We know that as long as the blood is flowing in the veins there is life -- the blood taking oxygen and nurishment to cells.

But what happens when the blood is shed?
Life is lost.

Shedding of blood is giving up life.
Hebrews 9:22 "without shedding of blood is no remission. "

Our sins are covered because Christ gave up His life and shed His blood, --poured out His blood, gave up His life, for our sakes.
His death and shed blood is necessary for forgiveness of sin. It is what frees us from the guilt and condemnation of our transgressions.
The penalty IS PAID! for all who come to Christ.
Christ pleads (presents) His shed blood on our behalf.

But yes, we are also saved by His life -- His merits -- His perfect righteousness. The robe of His righteousness that makes perfect our obedience.

Romans 5:10 we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

It's both -- His death AND His life!






All these things are not "either/or" but part of the WHOLE in Christ's marvelous plan of redemption.