i guess im asking, has man in trying to understand the things of God compared holy things with manmade institutions? and in so doing lost sight of the true meaning of Gods illustrations and words.
im used to reading such as this and i see no manmade legal terms anywhere in her writings. not only that i see so much more involved, so much deeper than any "legal" simplification.


It is the grace of Christ that draws men unto himself, and in him alone is hope and salvation for the sinner. Man is unworthy of any favor from God; but as Christ becomes his righteousness, he may ask and receive, in his name and through his merit, the grace and favor of God. Jesus bore the just penalty of the law, that we might have his grace; but this fact does not mean the subversion of the law. Paul asks, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." The bestowal of the grace of Christ upon the repentant sinner is that he may be brought into perfect harmony with the government of heaven. In the cross, mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. {ST, November 10, 1890 par. 2}
When we look to the cross of Calvary, we see that the highest claims of the law were met in the efficiency of the offering. Hence, Jesus is called "the Lord our righteousness." When we lay hold on the merit of Christ, and are able to say, "The Lord is my Saviour, my righteousness," then we are justified by faith, and have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. {ST, November 10, 1890 par. 3}

oops, i didnt realize this was a "bible study". i had discussion stuck on the brain.

no offense and i really dont mean to be offensive because i can see you put a lot of time, effort and thought into these, but i prefer to do my own bible studies. i have collected all the verses on born again, the old man/new man, etc., etc. it is about 30 pages long with all the related concepts because i want a thorough, indepth understanding.

QUOTE:
(Satan) "suggested that God was arbitrary, destitute of mercy and benevolence, because the penalty of the law fell upon the transgressor. When fallen man views God in this light, he casts aside his authority as a moral governor. God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force. God's law is the foundation of all law and government. The fact that Christ suffered the penalty of the law for all transgressors, is an unanswerable argument as to its immutable character, and it will justly condemn those who have sought to make it void. When the curse fell upon the beloved Son of God, who became sin for us, the Father made it manifest that the unrepenting transgressor of his law would have to suffer its full penalty. The word of God declares, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." The law of God was upheld and vindicated by the Son of God. The death of Christ, as an expiatory sacrifice, opens a way whereby the sinner may be pardoned, and turn from the path of transgression into the path of truth and righteousness, while at the same time it vindicates the honor and unchangeableness of the law. In the plan of salvation, justice and mercy clasp hands together. {EGW in ST, July 14, 1890 par. 2}

Not even going to go there, as know now you were baiting me. No, that's contrary to law and gospel.

God judges and is not arbitrary in punishing: punishment is only right after all the evidence is out in the open - as it is for saints and wicked by and on judgement day: hence fire, etc, and annihilation. So: get real!

Logic fails quite easily when all on its own.



Tom, you're leaving more than half the Bible out when you stop there. No, you are leaving the rest of Bible out! God is a warrior and a judge: "Mine is the vengeance, saith the Lord." Since you exclude that - including the very thought of holy violence and warfare - Rev 12, with your love and character alone line of logic, you need to think again.

Can you think beyond the words of a statement you read??? You said God let's sin destroy itself: That's wrong, since God is not a good character who does nothing in the face of wrong. That includes his act of judging. God is more powerful than sin due to it not being of him, plus once love has said its peace&piece - justice and mercy kissing - God does punish: "Those whom I love, I rebuke and chasen." Those who don't love God, condemned for their unbelief, receive his judgement, which is holy vengeance.


No, Tom! You go from one extreme to the other, hence you have problems. You look at what Jesus said, not why! He has kingship too, which is not oppressive but also not unauthoritative - I won't go into the rest of his kingly attributes like much more than just clearing the temple, as they should be well known and I haven't time right now: you lose sight of the trees since you focus on the bark!



Rosangela was right since you use different definitions for key words used in common. Don't you see that?!

You're in the wrong church, then, also, Tom: only Roman Catholicism lives by quotes and dictats like you want.

Adventism is still yet a community which commonly agrees what it believes - a very English gentleman's agreement: voted statements start the joint study. Your insistence that only the voted paragraphs are official is naive. Angel Rodriguez' Bible answer in Adventist World on the meaning of Christ's death, a few months ago, was the commonly agreed understanding, needed by someone who'd been confused by other in our midst, expressed by our most senior theologian: in the top church magazine. You disagreed with him, and think you haven't differed with an official position? Well: you have. Mistaking that is your problem.

Furthermore, the whole books, both the FBs book and The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, are both commonly accepted as the church community's position and these books, especially the Handbook, are owned and accessed - also by non-SDA scholars - as such: pastors in my corner of the church have no doubts about that. That you do shows you have a serious perception problem, and miss the forest for the trees.

Your club of pastors supporting you is a troublesome minority: distracting from the 3 angels' message of gospel judgement. Troublesome since "you" believe Christ needn't have died for our salvation: it wasn't to earn the right to forgive that he died, and if that's the case then "our death" for sin doesn't fit any necessity either; forget dying "to sin" - it's immaterial.

If God's Son didn't need to die to forgive repentant sinners here (don't start with Lucifer! - that's immaterial to us, and you're wrong anyway; besides who's he to us????), then God's law isn't holy and just and good, and sin is no real problem in God's universe: hence substitution itself, however defined, isn't needed! Sin may well bring one to kill another - we're each capable of it, but for the grace of God intervening, but it does not self-combust, so the result of sin isn't generally suicide - except exceptionally! - but judgement and annihilation in hell.

Our church doesn't lose sight of being reborn and learning the sanctified life, after the legal transaction of the cross - it merely confuses when in the gospel that rebirth happens. That's the pragmatic essence of this thread - harnessing the rebirth, but the sticking point with your view, for this thread and anywhere else, too, is Christ's necessity to die: you say "it's because of sin": that means you take God for an idiot, instead of the Devil, who is, anyway. To be reborn we have to die first, by faith: your way, that's not required - wished for, implied, but not required: all you say is "it says the Spirit gives new life to repentant sinners", but there's no death required for forgiveness of the old life so the new life itself is not necessary since the old life isn't in any way worthy of a legal sanction of death - why change it if it's not irrepairably broken and irredeemably doomed?!

God isn't purely trying to prove sin's reality on his Son - that is more than mad - that's not Jn 3:16, and contrary to his character, but it's your whole method of judgement and means & meaning of Christ's death argument.

God has, in Christ, saved the world from his judgement of wrath on sin which those who believe shall experience - the redemption, that is. God's judgement on unbelief - yes, unbelief, not actually on sin - is death in hell, at the last day, before the great white throne, and over quite quickly to recreate the earth itself - after all the believers have been sorted out already, for eternity.

Our Saviour saved us from a legal certainty of death and established a new legal certainty (Rom 5): his redemption of us, by his death. Without that legal issue there was no salvivic need for him to die: justice meeting mercy at the cross, not just mercy.

So, you lose the character of God argument despite your best efforts. If you don't see it in this line below, it means your paradigm has different foundations.

At the cross justice and mercy kissed.



Sorry, Tom, it appears you and your crowd of pastors need to find a different church, as you're all taking liberties with the freedom of discussion we enjoy: the commonly accepted beliefs of the church are generally known and shared between members and leaders of the church, without resort to dogmatism which your request for and reliance on official status requires. Such official literature is Roman Catholicism.

Yes, the FBs book is commonly presented and accepted as the understanding of the vast majority of the church body, as understood by the voters on the statements in the book; hence the book is published by the church. There are no official limitations, because we're not like that, but there is the body of believers who gather round that understanding of their confession of faith: It's commonly called the Seventh-day Adventist position. The voted statements themselves are of course subject to revision at the next GC Session.

I'll henceforth refrain from "official position" for my part, since our church community world wide talks more of "Bible truth" and "true church teachings" and such like phrases. You, nevertheless, cannot regard that general understanding spoken of among everyone in the church and written in the FBs and SDABC vol.12 as not being the beliefs of the church, in particular the meaning of Christ's death.

Yes, I have my differences with those current beliefs, but on the atonement there has been no similar change in understanding like I have my differences with on other issues, and your differences on the meaning of Christ's death depart from what our church has always generally understood.

This study might be more for Tom's benefit, Teresa, but we can just say we agree with the study, can't we? Dedication is simply seeking to prove from the Bible itself rather than any church publications - including SOP - what the truth is. We should all agree straight away and maybe bring our own texts to support this Bible study.

How about adding to this study, with your copious research that you have to hand?

So I gave two bible studies on the subject --
first the one on col. then a further one on texts dealing with Adams sin brought death, Christ brought the resurrection.

I don't know what you're referring to here. There are quite a number of references from the SOP which make the very point I brought up. God was not obligated to save man. He did so because of His great love for humanity, but to do so involved the risk of His Son, which is not something He took lightly.





The primary meaning of "arbitrary" according to Webster's is, "depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)."

This is exactly what you are putting forth, Colin! This is how I've been using the term, according to its primary definition, and I've explained this many times.



Pay better attention!



I agree. Please consider the Christus Victor post in terms of the meaning of this.



Colin, I don't understand these puerile retorts. What do you want me to do? Respond, "no, *you* need to think again!" Please, you should be able to discuss things in a calm manner without these sorts of comments. Let's just stick to the issues.

You're throwing out concepts in a few sentences that take much effort to do justice to. Before putting a lot of effort into this, let me just clarify, you are asserting the violence is an essential part to God's character and how He runs His government, correct? This is how I understand your assertion "including the very thought of holy violence and warfare." That is, you see the warfare of God as being violent (at least, at times, in a "holy" way). I'm understanding you correctly?

Regarding the vengeance of God, the vengeance which Christ taught was to turn the other cheek when someone strikes you, to walk a second mile when obligated to walk one, and to love your enemies. When Paul speaks of the vengeance of the Lord, he quotes proverbs, which says to give food and drink to your enemies, for in so doing you heap coals upon their head.

The vengeance of God is to love His enemies. The revelation of God's character, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked. Thus God's justice and vengeance is served.

God destroys His enemies by love, just like the statement quoted from DA 764 says.



I think in the case of what I quoted from DA 764 that this isn't necessary as what she wrote is very clear as is. That is, the words accurately express her intent.



No, I didn't say that. Please be more careful, Colin! I appreciate that you're quoting me, but please be true to the quotes. I've never said "God let's sin destroy itself."



Here you're arguing against a straw man. Of course God cannot do nothing in the face of wrong, as only an evil person would allow wrong to continue without taking any action. I've often quoted, at least a dozen times, from Fifield's "Christ's Sacrifice Honors the Law" from "God is Love" which makes this very point.



I agree with this. I see God's judgment and "holy vengeance" working in the ways I've described and quoted, according to His wrath.



Colin, wasn't rhetoric a part of your studies? These sort of personal attacks are poor form. They do nothing to help your argument.



This is jumping all over the place. This has happened quite a number of times. I make a specific comment about a specific quote, and rather than deal with the points I'm making, you are going off on some other topic.

The point I made was specifically in reference to Mark 10:45, and the point was that none of the things you were saying about that quote had anything to do with what Jesus said there, nor its context. If you wish to dispute these points, you need to look at the Scripture itself, Mark 10:42-45, and explain where in that text the things you are claiming about the text are supported by the text. Specifically that Christ's use of the word "ransom" has anything whatsoever to do with penal substitution.



I'll have to end here for now, and get to the rest of what you wrote later. I appreciate the time and effort you put into these posts, and also appreciate that you're quoting things I said.

Regarding what Rosangela said, I was glad to see her admit that *she* was parsing Prescott according to her own ideas, rather than accepting his meaning of the words he was using. The reason her point was invalid in regards to me is that Dedication was not quoting anyone. If she had quoted some known penal substitution person, then there would be a valid comparison. We would have:

1.Prescott, a known postlapsarian, uses words to express common postlapsarian concepts. Rosangela twists those words to mean something Prescott did not intend.

2.John Doe, a known penal substitution adherent, uses words to express common penal concepts. Tom twists those words to mean something John Doe did not intend.

But this isn't what happened. Dedication didn't quote anyone. Rosangela's point was invalid because it lacked the context that my point to her in regards to Prescott had.

If you look at the "Christus Victor" post, you will see that the author there makes exactly the same point that I have been making regarding Christ's death being substitutionary. One does not need to believe in penal substitution to believe that Christ's death is substitutionary. I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who doesn't believe this (that's a Christian, of course) despite being familiar with quite a few who have different ideas in regards to the atonement.

"Substitutionary" means "taking the place of." There is nothing penal about the word "substitutionary." This is why the "penal substitution" view of the atonement is called that, and not simply the "substitution" theory.

This is another personal attack, but it's a rather interesting one, so I'll respond.

It seems to me to be the reverse, that I've been following the spirit of Adventism in the approach I've taken, while you've been using the tactics of Catholicism. For example, a common tack was to twist what someone said and argue against that, rather than deal with what was actually said. For example, when Huss was ordered to retract what he was said, being presented to him as things he had taught, he said he couldn't retract the things being presented to him as he never claimed these things.

I've been very careful to present you're actual ideas (as careful as I can be), quoting your own words, and asking for clarification when not clear as to your meaning. You've often not done this, asserting things I've never said, with no proof. When this has been called to your attention, you've often simply reaffirmed the wrong statement, again with no proof. You've never apologized for doing this nor admitted your error.

A second example is in regards to referring to church authority. You've done this many times. I've never done this, except as a defense to an attack. You accused me of "trashing" the position of the church and going against the official positions of the church, when all the while you are the one who disagrees with some of its official teachings.

I made the comment that I had never publicly, on this forum or any other forum, or in any public context, attacked the official statements of the church as being wrong. I thought about this some more and realized this I hadn't gone far enough. I've never even done this privately! Not even to myself.

The authority that Adventism relies upon is the authority of truth, which is established by evidence and well thought out arguments. This is the approach I've consistently followed.

Distressing Experiences of 1888
The love of Christ must be an abiding principle in the heart, that will bear fruit in love and tenderness and respect for one another. The love of the truth, the doing of the words of Christ, would soften and subdue our hearts. The purity and goodness and love of the great heart of Jesus must be reflected upon our hearts and revealed in our characters, that we may be partakers of the divine nature and have tender compassion for each other. {1888 176.1}
For many years I have been bearing, by pen and voice, the same testimony of appeal and entreaties, but oh, how disappointed I have been at heart to see how little the message of Christ in His Word has been heeded, and how little the message given me of God has affected the course of action of many of my brethren! When unable to sleep nights I have entreated the Lord in prayer to remove the burden that caused me so great pain of heart. Then it would come vividly before me that the same acts that the divine Redeemer experienced when He was in this world, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, are being repeated by Christ's professed followers today. {1888 176.2}
"He was wounded for our transgression, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Isaiah 53:5. {1888 176.3}
Christ sojourned thirty-three years in this world, and how was He treated? The world disowned Him, scorned Him, and pronounced sentence against Him in the judgment hall, and, as agents of the prince of darkness, acted out his spirit in putting Christ to death. It was the worst that humanity could do. It was unrequited love that broke the heart of the Son of God. {1888 176.4}
Even His own twelve disciples were not proof against Satan's temptations. A Judas betrayed Him into the hands of His enemies, and in the hour of His humiliation in the judgment hall Peter denied Him. Jesus was disappointed in His disciples, and shall I lose courage with the experience and example of Christ before me? Shall I faint under the knowledge which has impressed itself so powerfully on my mind--that some of those who claim to believe present truth for this time disappoint the Saviour as verily today in their attitude and spiritual blindness as when Christ was in His human form in the world? {1888 177.1}
Jesus cannot say "Peace be unto you," unless all bickering and dissension, jealousy and evil surmisings shall cease. I was burdened greatly. I knew not what I could do. I felt remorse of soul at times because I could not do more to arouse my brethren and sisters to see and sense the great loss they were sustaining in not opening their hearts to receive the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness. They could not let the beams of light shine upon others in love, faith, trust in God, forbearance, goodness, and purity. {1888 177.2}
I carried the burden until nature gave way and while at Healdsburg I fainted. For about two weeks I was prostrated by sickness so severe that I had no power to exercise faith. A discouragement was upon me that it seemed I should never rise above. My courage was gone. I lost my desire to live. {1888 177.3}
Word came by letter to us from Oakland that special seasons of prayer were being held in my behalf, that the Lord would heal me of my sickness and that I should be able to bear my testimony before the congregation assembled in the camp meeting at Oakland. I tried to make some effort to respond. I tried to walk out by faith as I had done in the past. A bed was made for me on the seats of the car and I lay down until we changed for the boat. I was strengthened to reach the Mission in Oakland, and although weak and trembling I was strengthened to bear my testimony in the congregation several times. {1888 177.4}
During this severe attack of sickness I had vividly brought to my remembrance the experience I passed through when my husband was dying. I prayed with him in my great feebleness on that occasion. I sat by his side with his hand in mine until he fell asleep in Jesus. The solemn vows I there made to stand at my post of duty were deeply impressed upon my mind--vows to disappoint the enemy, to bear a constant, earnest appeal to my brethren of the cruelty of their jealousies and evil surmisings which were leavening the churches. I would appeal to them to love one another, to keep their hearts tender by the remembrance of the love of Jesus exercised toward them, in what He did for them. And He said, "Love one another, as I have loved you." John 15:12. I never can express with pen or voice the work that I discerned was laid out before me on that occasion when I was beside my dying husband. I have not lost the deep views of my work, as I sat by the bed of my husband with his dying hand in mine. {1888 177.5}
I have tried to fulfil my pledge. I knew the peril that threatened the church in Battle Creek, and in all our conferences, was the cherishing of a hard, unkind spirit. Some are here who were present when I stood in the desk alone after the funeral of my husband. They know the words spoken by me on that occasion under my deep sorrow, were spoken under the influence of the Spirit of the Lord. I knew that Satan had stolen a march upon many souls who did not suspect his devices. I knew that the enemy would exercise his power to weaken the church. Satan was surely working in the children of disobedience, to distract and bring dissension into the church. {1888 178.1}
In my feebleness I entreated that Satan should not have any place and should not exult over the people who have had so great light and so great opportunities and privileges. I implored our people in Battle Creek to cherish tenderness, kindness, and esteem for one another, to close the door to the enemy, and to cultivate that love that Jesus has manifested toward the erring children of men. He gave His own life that they should not perish, but have everlasting life. He gave His disciples His dying testimony, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13:34, 35. {1888 178.2}
If this love is of such power, why not express it in words and in our actions toward one another? Why are we so cold, so hard-hearted, so critical? If we are children of God, why not have the love of Jesus revealed in our lives and expressed in our treatment of one another? Should one drop into the grave, there would then be hung in memory's hall the pleasant pictures of kind words spoken, of kindly acts, of a spirit of brotherly love and tender forbearance exercised. The words spoken to you in Battle Creek in August 1881 were an appeal and a warning. The trial and experience that followed showed you did not heed the testimony given you. {1888 179.1}
This meeting has been the saddest experience of my life, and yet I feel the peace of Christ sustaining me. I see that which fills my heart with very disagreeable forebodings. I had presented before me in Europe chapters in the future experience of our people which are being fulfilled during this meeting. The reason given me was, want of Bible piety and of the spirit and mind of Christ. The enemy has been placing his mold on the work for years, for it certainly is not the divine mold. {1888 179.2}
Two years ago Jesus was grieved and bruised in the person of His saints. The rebuke of God is upon everything of the character of harshness, of disrespect, and the want of sympathetic love in brother toward brother. If this lack is seen in the men who are guardians of our conferences, guardians of our institutions, the sin is greater in them than in those who have not been entrusted with so large responsibilities. They are to be ensamples to the flock. They are to practice the life of Christ, repeating His lessons both by precept and example. {1888 179.3}
No man can truly be a Christian unless he cherishes love for his brethren. The spirit of criticism, of evil feeling and evil speaking, has been like leaven doing its unchristlike work more decidedly since that conference. I am alarmed. I am full of sorrow. God has given you testimonies condemning everything of this character, which testimonies are to be heeded and not fall to the ground. Brethren, will you take into serious consideration the fact that we are backsliding from God, and we do not meet the standard of God's Word? We do not heed the lessons Christ has given us. {1888 180.1}
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not; for it was founded upon a rock." Matthew 7:21-25. {1888 180.2}
Brethren, why are we not more diligent, not only in hearing but in doing the words of Christ? "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4. It is because there is such inattention in hearing the lessons Christ has given to us, and such negligence in doing His words, that there is so great want of spiritual health and vital spiritual life in our midst. The Spirit of the Lord is grieved with our disregard of the words of the heavenly Teacher, and we do not have peace, joy, and heavenly discernment. If there were less combating and more praying for the mind that was in Christ Jesus and for divine grace to win souls, there would be altogether a different atmosphere in these meetings. {1888 180.3}
"And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand [on his own human efforts]: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell: and great was the fall of it." Matthew 7:26, 27. {1888 181.1}
There is a larger number who profess to believe the truth for this time, who are represented as hearing the sayings of Christ and doing them not, than of those who diligently hear and are doers of His words. They do not endure temptation, because their souls are not riveted to the eternal Rock. They are hearers and not doers of the word. Their religious faith is represented by the house built on the sand. The storms of temptation come and it falls, because it is not built upon the Rock. {1888 181.2}
We all know better than to do as we have done. There is no excuse for this unchristlike spirit. If Christ were abiding in the soul we could not but reveal Christ's forbearance, Christ's courtesy, and the love of Christ. All this hard, unkind, uncourteous spirit manifested toward brethren is registered in the books of heaven as manifested toward Jesus Christ, for He identifies His interest with that of His brethren. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40. {1888 181.3}
I have pledged myself by a solemn vow to God that wherever this spirit of contempt and unkindness and want of love should exist, I would lay it out in clear lines before my brethren, show them the sinfulness of their course, and with decided testimony turn the current if possible. If I could not succeed, then I would withdraw myself from the meetings, for I am afraid to be in such gatherings lest I shall be leavened with the prevailing spirit. {1888 181.4}

I think you're understanding of how this works is incorrect. I know someone personally who wrote several of the chapters for that book. What are you basing your opinion here on?



I think A. Graham Maxwell wrote the commentary for Romans. So can I claim Romans as mine?

I think this whole line of reasoning is silly. The truth of the matter is there is quite a range of opinion within SDAism in terms of the atonement, and the church has accommodated differing ideas, as long as they adhere to the basic premises of the church. What are the "basisc premises"? They are the positions that are voted on.

I've asserted a number of times that, as far as I'm aware, my positions are the same as Waggoner's. I can add Jones as well, as I'm not aware of anything that I disagree with him regarding either (excluding the Daily, which I'm not sure about, but think he may have been wrong). Anyway, Ellen White said Waggoner could teach rbf better than she could, and endorsed Jones and Waggoner over a thousand times. She said that they had a message from God Himself, and that this message was to lighten the earth with glory. It was the beginning of the latter rain, of the loud cry.

So I'm content to pitch my tent with that message. I'm convinced it was truth.



No change in the atonement?! That's an interesting assertion! So nothing happened around 1950 in this regard?

How about the nature of Christ? Did that change in some way? Certainly you'll agree that it did. So the only way the position on the atonement could not have changed is if the nature of Christ has nothing to do with the atonement. Is this your assertion?

Regarding specifically the meaning of Christ's death, I think Fifield had it exactly right. As did Waggoner. Now if the position of the church hasn't changed, then I should be able to site them as members of the church expressing the position of the church. Unless you want to assert that they were aberrant.