|
Forums118
Topics9,234
Posts196,239
Members1,327
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11888
12/06/04 03:47 AM
12/06/04 03:47 AM
|
|
|
"It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a reason for its existence. Yet enough may be understood concerning both the origin and the final disposition of sin to make fully manifest the justice and benevolence of God in all His dealings with evil. Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given. It is mysterious, unaccountable; to excuse it is to defend it. Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin. Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is 'the transgression of the law;' it is the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love which is the foundation of the divine government."
{GC 492.2}
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11889
12/05/04 06:22 PM
12/05/04 06:22 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Yes, sin was avoidable. The fact man choose to sin is not God's fault, that is, He did not force them to sin. Sin is a choice. But the potential for sin was not possible until God created beings capable of sinning. Consequently, God created a situation that made sin possible.
Given the fact God created beings capable of sinning, knowing ahead of time that they would choose to sin, God took responsibility for sin, way before it happened, and consented to allow Jesus to live and die on our behalf. Before there was a sinner, there was a Saviour.
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11890
12/05/04 08:59 PM
12/05/04 08:59 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
Hi Stacie and Tom: Regarding the function of the blood of Christ, the New Testament writers are clear that it is no metaphore; that it is THE great reality. There are many texts we could cite, but I'll limit my quote to one: quote:
9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]. Hebrews.
One of the longest threads on the forum deals with this topic. Here is the link to it in the 'Search for Truth' forum.
http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=57;t=000110;p=1
What could be more foundational than the blood sacrifice of the Deity!? It is the mysterious source of all spiritual life for the fallen and unfallen worlds - all are sustained by that great river that issues from the riven side of Christ. The movement within Adventism to change this life-giving truth into a metaphore could well be the central pillar of the Omega that we have heard of for so many years.
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11891
12/06/04 01:38 AM
12/06/04 01:38 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Mike: Yes, God created a situation, by creating free moral agents, who were capable of sinning and dying, and who, according to His foreknowledge, were destined to sin and die, but it does not mean that God forced them to sin. Tom: To say that God created free moral agents "destined to sin and die" may be Calvinism, but it is not Adventism. Can you come up with any SDA statement written during EGW's lifetime (by her or any other Adventist) that says or implies that man was "destined to sin and die"? quote:
God made upright; He gave him noble traits of character, with no bias toward evil. He endowed him with high intellectual powers, and presented before him the strongest possible inducements to be true to his allegiance. (PP 50)
Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, "He is in close converse with His Father." The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person...He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race. (EW 126)
Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them. (EW 127)
These quotes show that heaven reacted to sin after it occured. What sense does this council make if man was "destined" for sin? And even less sense would the statement make that it was a "struggle" for God to yield up His Son.
The whole tenor of these quotes is that God was dealing with a situation which arose, not one which had been "destined."
Mike: Jesus did not die on the cross on account of sin, rather, by His God-given power and authority, Jesus laid down His own life, but not until He consumed and conquered sin and the second death, on our behalf.
Tom: Christ died of a broken heart, which was the result of Him taking our sin.
quote:
Reproach hath broken My heart; and I am full of heaviness: (Ps. 69:20)
Behold Him in the wilderness, in Gethsemane, upon the cross! The spotless Son of God took upon Himself the burden of sin. He who had been one with God, felt in His soul the awful separation that sin makes between God and man. This wrung from His lips the anguished cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matt. 27:46. It was the burden of sin, the sense of its terrible enormity, of its separation of the soul from God--it was this that broke the heart of the Son of God. (FILB 101)
Christ took upon Himself the condemnation of sin....
God permits His Son to be delivered up for our offenses. (FILB 104)
Mike: Giving Satan the credit for creating sin and death robs God of His power and authority and His sovereignty.
Tom: Again, this is Calvinistic and not Adventist thought.
Mike: Blaming Satan for the existence of sin and death assumes Satan, and not God, is in control of sin and death.
Tom: It's simply assigning blame where it belongs; with Satan, not with God.
quote:
"The fall of our first parents, with all the woe that has resulted, [Satan] charges upon the Creator, leading men to look upon God as the author of sin, and suffering, and death." (DA 24)
Mike: Sin and death were not possible until after God created beings capable of sinning and dying. Since God is responsible for creating beings, who He knew would sin, the responsibility for eliminating sin and death, therefore, rests with God, and God alone.
Tom: God knew man was capable of choosing to sin, and in that event He had a plan ready to meet the emergency. Because God created a Universe in which sin arose, although contrary to His will, it was His responsibility to take of the problem. He has taken care of the problem, not with compelling force, which is contrary to the principles of His government, but by using love and truth.
Mike: Throughout eternity we will praise God for punishing sinners and destroying them in the lake of fire.
Tom: This comment brings the following to mind:
quote:
Will the redeemed in heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic or the cruelty of the savage?..."As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?" (GC 535)
You know, the "sinners" which God is being praised for "punishing" and "destroying" "in the lake of fire" could be your wife or children. Do you really think God will be cheering if your wife and children were destroyed?
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11892
12/06/04 01:47 AM
12/06/04 01:47 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Mark, if it's not a metaphor, then it's literal. Are you saying that Christ literally took His blood with Him to heaven? How to He gather it up? Was someone waiting at the cross to collect it? (I speak reverantly).
In what sense can it be said that Christ literally took His blood to heaven?
The word "blood" stands for "life". Christ gave His life for us. Do you disagree that with this?
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11893
12/06/04 04:20 AM
12/06/04 04:20 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
Yes, sin was avoidable. The fact man chose to sin is not God's fault, that is, He did not force them to sin. Sin is a choice. But the potential for sin was not possible until God created beings capable of sinning. Consequently, God created a situation that made sin possible.
I have always agreed with this, although I find it interesting that you aparently feel the need to qualify the statement that sin is not God's fault. At any rate, this is a far cry from saying, "God is responsible for creating a situation where sin and death was inevitable." If sin is "inevitable," then how can you say it was "avoidable"? ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif)
quote:
Given the fact God created beings capable of sinning, knowing ahead of time that they would choose to sin, God took responsibility for sin, way before it happened, and consented to allow Jesus to live and die on our behalf. Before there was a sinner, there was a Saviour.
I'm familiar with this statement:
quote:
As soon as there was sin, there was a Saviour. (DA 210)
This is such a well known statement, I can't help of thinking you had it in mind. Did you? If you did, what was your point in re-wording it?
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11894
12/06/04 02:55 PM
12/06/04 02:55 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, thank you for taking the time to outline our differences. Nicely done. To summarize, I believe God 1) foresaw sin before it happened, 2) formulated the plan of redemption before sin happened, and 3) applied the blood of Jesus the moment sin happened.
Technically speaking, sin was avoidable, that is, God created beings capable of choosing not to sin. Knowing ahead of time that they would sin did not rob them of their freedom to sin, not any more than applying the blood of Jesus the moment they sinned robbed them of their freedom to die. We will always be free to sin and die, even in the New Earth.
But we are not free to sin and die the second death. We cannot resurrect ourselves, therefore we cannot choose to die the second death. God makes that choice for us. Yes, His decision to resurrect the wicked is based on the outcome of their choices, as disclosed during the IJ, but God is in control.
Since the wicked cannot die the second death without God resurrecting them, it should be obvious that whether or not they die the second death depends on whether or not God resurrects them. Thus, it should also be obvious that God is responsible for creating a situation where the second death is possible and inevitable. Again, God is in control.
The same can be said of the death of Jesus. In other words, God created a situation whereby it became possible for His Son to live and die as a human sacrifice. Thus, God is responsible for creating a situation where the death of His Son was possible and inevitable. Jesus chose to lay down His life. Again, God is in control, not sin, not death, and certainly not Satan.
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11895
12/07/04 05:18 AM
12/07/04 05:18 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
I'll respond to the points of your post later, but I notice both here and many other places you mention God being in control. What's driving this? I've not stated nor implied at any time that God is not in control. I have re-iterated the view of inspiration that God is not the author of sin, suffering or death. Where is it that you see God's control being threatened in the views I've presented?
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11896
12/07/04 02:23 PM
12/07/04 02:23 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
The reason I keep mentioning the fact God is in control is because He is the author of life and death. Yes, I know Sister White uses the word "author of death" in a different sense. And, of course, I agree with her. That is, God did not force anyone to sin. But the fact is, He has killed (i.e., destroyed) hundreds and thousands and millions of people since the Flood, and He will kill millions and billions more in the lake of fire. God, not sin and death, is in control of sin and death.
The death of Jesus is an example of God's control over sin and death. No one killed the Lamb of God - not sin, not death, not us, and not Satan. Yes, our sins caused Him to suffer great soul anguish, but it did not kill Him. Jesus willingly laid down His life, but not until He consumed and conquered our sins and our second death. Our Lord defeated sin and death on the cross. He laid down His life as a conqueror, not as a fallen foe of sin and death.
The idea that Jesus was a victim of sin and death, that He suffered the natural consequences of sin and death, contradicts the fact He was in control of sin and death on the cross, not sin and death. He cried, It is finished, before He died. Jesus defeated sin and death, and thereby became the lawful owner of our sin and second death, the lawful owner of the keys of hell and of death. As the holder of the keys of hell and of death, Jesus will determine and arbitrate the the final demise of hell and death.
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11897
12/07/04 10:52 PM
12/07/04 10:52 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
The reason I keep mentioning the fact God is in control is because He is the author of life and death. Yes, I know Sister White uses the word "author of death" in a different sense. And, of course, I agree with her.
How is she using the term in any way different than yours? She stated that Satan has attempted to present God as the author of sin, suffering and death. That's exactly what you're saying. You said:
quote:
God is responsible for creating a situation where sin and death was inevitable.
If you really believe this, the logical conclusion is that God is the author of suffering and death, as well as being the author of sin, since without sin there would be no suffering and death. So you have the whole picture. God is the author of sin, suffering and death. What makes you think you're using the term any differenly than she is?
God is NOT the author of death. It is a blight on God's character to say such a thing. One hears these sorts of things from non-SDA's all the time, but this is not SDA theology and never has been. We have a direct statement from the Spirit of Prophesy specifically speaking to this very point.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
