John: What I'm saying is what Ellen White said. I'm sorry that's so incomprehensible to you.

Tom: I'm asking what is it that Ellen White said means. Asking what something means is a good thing.

John: The difference is that much of Catholic doctrine is man-made, and what Ellen White said is straight from God. The passages above are very plain in their meaning, for those who take time to digest them.

Tom: This is an arbitrary answer. A Catholic would answer, "the difference with SDA thought is that it is man-made, and what the Pope proclaimed is straight from God."

John: Of course many parts of the salvation process are not able to be understood by limited humans. "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God." (Deut. 29:29)

Tom: I think you're misapplying this verse. The questions we have been studying, the atonement, the destruction of the wicked, the meaning of Christ's death, are not "secret things" but things which we have a sacred obligation to investigate. That's the purpose for our discussions, is it not? To endeavor to learn truth?

Mike: Tom, again, I agree with John, and the quote he shared. The idea that Jesus earned the right to own our sins and second makes sense to me, but I realize you're not comfortable with the idea.

Tom: I guess it depends on how one phrases things. I'm not sure what Jesus "owning" our sins means. I might not be against this idea, depending on what it meant. I certainly agree that He earned the right to call us brethren. This He did by humbling Himself to take our nature.

What I would say is that Jesus demonstrated by His life and death the truth of the issues of the Great Controversy, and this is how He has obtained the victory.

The idea I'm against is that God's forgiveness did not proceed directly from Him but that He had to be prompted or in so way prepared or something had to happen so that He could forgive. God forgave because He is forgiveness personified. It is His nature to forgive. He is gracious, kind and compassionate. That's why He provided the sacrifice. There was no need for Jesus to do something to influence God. We are the ones that need to be influenced.


Mike: In some ways, sin is a commodity, and I realize you're not comfortable with this idea either.

Tom: In what way is sin a commodity. Isn't sin the transgression of the law? Doesn't it reside in the mind?

I see the problem of sin being a problem of the mind. God needs to teach us to think correctly, to have the mind of Christ. The is what the atonement is all about. It is bring us into harmony with Him, making us "at one" with Him. He does this by revealing truth to us through Jesus Christ.

Mike: Since our sins and second death were not eliminated at the cross, that means they still exist somewhere.

Tom: Sins can't be eliminated physically. Sin is a mental problem. God has defeated sin by the principles of truth and love, through a revelation of Himself, His character, in Jesus Christ. All who accept this revelation are healed and restored now. Those who refuse will encountre God in the second resurrection when no more healing will be possible. However, they will also acknowledge that God's revelation is true, that God was right in the Great Controversy. All of creation will acknowledge this truth, and that's how sin will be destroyed. Not arbitrarily, not by force, but by the principles of God's government, love and truth.

Mike: I believe they exist within the blood of Jesus, within the heavenly sanctuary, which I admit is a mystery, but I don't have a problem with it being a mystery. Yes, there is also a record of our sins in the MHP.

Tom: How can sins exist within blood? I guess you'll just answer you don't know how. It's hard to continue a conversation past this, but I'll reiterate this sounds to me just like the Catholic idea that "somehow" we literally eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood. It's an arbitrary answer.

For some reason the colors are funky today. It is just me, or was something changed for the site (taking advantage of discussing things with a moderator)

Mark: Does God punish, Tom? Yes.
Does He enforce? Yes. Who records our sins? Isn't it the good angels? Why would a God of love do that - invest a significant part of the resources of the universe in keeping a record of our lives? Or do you think He does that?

Tom. I believe the record which God keeps is a record of our character. He does this so there will be no question as to the characters of those whom God has designated safe to save. The unfallen angels and other unfallen beings have a vested interest in seeing evidence that sin will not occur a second time, as God has promised. God does not simply ask them to accept His word, although of course they would, but He provides evidence so that anyone interested can see.

Mark: I believe He does and that it is truly the blood of Christ that is the only way the heavenly records can be cleansed and our characters revitalized? Yes, I believe I am truly washed in His blood. It is wonderful. I believe that shows the love of God - the lengths He will go to in order to justify a sinner, even me! Do you find that picture of God arbitary? If so, can you tell me why?

Tom: I agree with what you wrote. When you say "I believe I am truly washed in His blood" that's obviously not literal any more than we are saved by literally eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood.

I affirm that I truly am saved by eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood. I also affirm that I am saved by being washed by His blood. But what does this mean?

Arbitrary means by individual discretion rather than by a law which governs things. God gives us evidence so we can give reasons for the things we believe.

Look at how Christ responded to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. He didn't immediately reveal who He was, but He walked them through the Bible so they would have evidence to know who He was.

God wants us to think these things through to understand the principles involved, so we know why we believe what we believe.

Regarding the record of heaven, you imply there is no record of sin kept, only a record of character. The types however transfer the record of sin through the blood of the animal. The confession made on the head of the innocent lamb is of the wrong act, the sin. Wrong character is not transferred to the sanctuary. The sanctuary is the ‘safe place or refuge’ that allows us mortals with flawed characters to live notwithstanding our sins.

Regarding my statement that I am washed in the blood of Christ, it is literal. There is no metaphor. As one who takes the roll of a teacher, shouldn't we be entitle to expect that you know that we are speaking of spiritual things? Flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom. We do not enter into our mother's wombs a second time to be reborn. The regeneration is spiritual, but it is the Spirit who through the blood of Christ washes us spiritually making us new. We do not know exactly how, but we know that the blood of Christ is applied by the Spirit to wash our away our sins and revitalize our characters. It is the spirit that quickens. The flesh profits nothing. But it is the blood of Christ that makes all of this possible and opens paradise to us.

Mark: We all are teachers, or we loose our standing as students.

"We are learners that we may be teachers. This idea must be imprinted in the mind of every church member.
We believe fully in church organization, but in nothing that is to prescribe the precise way in which we must work; for all minds are not reached by the same methods. Nothing is to be allowed to keep the working servant of God from his fellowman. The individual believer is to labor for the individual sinner. . . .{DG 130.3}

"By wise cultivation our ability should increase, that we may have growing power to understand the sacred teachings of Christ. We are to become teachers of the mysteries of the gospel." {RH, April 19, 1892 par. 8}

Tom, what I mean by “Jesus earned the right to own our sin and second death” is, in a way I don’t completely understand, He is lawfully responsible for eliminating our sin and second death. If Jesus hadn’t assumed responsibility for our sin and second death, by living and dying the perfect life and death, then each one of us would have to suffer and die our own second death, with our own sins.

When we sin, we incur the wrath of God, we come under the condemnation of law, we deserve to suffer and die the second death. God cannot simply disregard the holy, just and good law, and forgive us. The law demands the death of sinners, and in order to forgive and save us, God must satisfy the law. Yes, God longs to forgive us; yes, it’s in His nature to forgive; no, He doesn’t need excuses to forgive us.

Yes, in one sense sin is a commodity. I do not understand it completely, but sin would cease to exist if there were no sinners. So, in one way, Jesus earned the right to own us, which includes our sins and second death. Again, I believe our sins and second death are quarantined within His blood, within the heavenly sanctuary. Yes, sin is the transgression of the law, a problem of mind and heart. But we are associated with our sins, and to eliminate our sins, we ourselves must be eliminated, which is accomplished in Jesus, if we accept Him as our Saviour.

How can sin exist within blood? In the same way it can exist in books in heaven. Sin is not only a thought, word or deed, it is also a cancer that kills. You have made that point abundantly clear. “Alas that pride, unbelief, and selfishness, like a foul cancer, are eating out vital godliness from the heart of many a professed Christian! RC 368. However, you and I interpret this fact in different and contradicting ways. I believe it is a cancer that can be, and was, transferred to Jesus, and will be transferred to Satan. It is also passed on from generation to generation.

Mark: Regarding the record of heaven, you imply there is no record of sin kept, only a record of character.

Tom: That was not my intent. The books of heavenly reflect the reality if our characters. That's what I meant.

Mark: The types however transfer the record of sin through the blood of the animal. The confession made on the head of the innocent lamb is of the wrong act, the sin. Wrong character is not transferred to the sanctuary. The sanctuary is the ‘safe place or refuge’ that allows us mortals with flawed characters to live notwithstanding our sins.

Tom: What is it you see the act of the sinner offering a sacrifice representing? How many parties are involved? (e.g., the sinner is one party)

Mark: Regarding my statement that I am washed in the blood of Christ, it is literal. There is no metaphor.

Tom: Your using words in an odd way. Literal means "Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words." A metaphor is "A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another." Although you claim your statement is literal, your explanation is of a metaphor. If it really were literal, it would mean that you took a bath in actual blood. This would be in accordance with, conforming to, and upholding the exact or primary meaning of the words involved.

It's difficult to communicate when words are used in a non-standard way. Since you have a non-standard defition of "literal" in mind, you could provide a definition of it, as well as a defintion of "metaphor," and then I might be able to understand what you're saying. It appears to me that you are confusing "literal" with "real," and "metaphor" with "not real," but perhaps you have some other meaning in mind, so I'll await your response.

Mike: Tom, what I mean by “Jesus earned the right to own our sin and second death” is, in a way I don’t completely understand, He is lawfully responsible for eliminating our sin and second death.

Tom: This isn't difficult to understand. He's responsbile because He created us.

Mike: If Jesus hadn’t assumed responsibility for our sin and second death, by living and dying the perfect life and death, then each one of us would have to suffer and die our own second death, with our own sins.

Tom: I agree with this completely.

Mike: When we sin, we incur the wrath of God, we come under the condemnation of law, we deserve to suffer and die the second death. God cannot simply disregard the holy, just and good law, and forgive us. The law demands the death of sinners, and in order to forgive and save us, God must satisfy the law. Yes, God longs to forgive us; yes, it’s in His nature to forgive; no, He doesn’t need excuses to forgive us.

Tom: I agree with this too, although I think I understand what you wrote differently than you do. I understand that sin itself brings the condemnation; it's not something arbitrary which God adds. The principle of sin is selfishness, cutting oneself off from others, including God. Since God is the source of life, sin is suicidal. The sting of death is sin. The wages of sin is death. In other words, sin kills.

The statement that "the law demands death" is the same as saying "the soul that sins will die." It's not an arbitrary law, but a description of the way things really are. Sin really is evil. It really does cause death.

Mike: Yes, in one sense sin is a commodity. I do not understand it completely, but sin would cease to exist if there were no sinners.

Tom: This is easy to understand too. Sin resides in the mind. Without sinners, there is no mind in which it can exist.

Mike: So, in one way, Jesus earned the right to own us, which includes our sins and second death.

Tom: I agree with this statement if what it means is that Jesus, by taking our nature and overcoming sin by faith and suffering the consequences of taking our sin upon Him, did all that was necessary in order to bring us into harmony with God. Of course, Jesus already had the right to own us, or to state it more succinctly, He did own us by virture of having created us. After His work in accomplishing our redemption, He owns us twice, both by virture of creation and redemption. The section in FW 21, 22 touches on this (even more if you read the whole section, starting before page 21).

Mike: Again, I believe our sins and second death are quarantined within His blood, within the heavenly sanctuary. Yes, sin is the transgression of the law, a problem of mind and heart. But we are associated with our sins, and to eliminate our sins, we ourselves must be eliminated, which is accomplished in Jesus, if we accept Him as our Saviour.

Tom: It sounds to me like you have this completely backwards. Sin must be eliminated from us in order that our existence might not cease. It is not we who need to be eliminated, but sin. We are associated with our sins because as a man thinks in his heart, so he is. There's nothing arbitrary about this. You're making it harder to understand than it actually is.

Sin resides in the mind. It is our thinking which must be corrected. We need to learn to think in a Christ-centered way, in accordance with the principles of God's law, which is fulfilled by love. When we learn to love, rather than serve self, we are healed from the cancer of sin. Then we can exist in God's presence without being destroyed by His glory.

Mike: How can sin exist within blood? In the same way it can exist in books in heaven.

Tom: Sin doesn't exist in the books of heaven. Sin exists in our minds. The books in heaven are a record of our minds. It is our minds which need to be cleansed. The problem is in us.

Mike: Sin is not only a thought, word or deed, it is also a cancer that kills. You have made that point abundantly clear. “Alas that pride, unbelief, and selfishness, like a foul cancer, are eating out vital godliness from the heart of many a professed Christian! RC 368.

Tom: Sin is a cancer which kills because it leads us to view God in a way He is not; as arbitrary and cruel rather than gracious, kind and compassionate. It leads us to fear Him and makes us uncomfortable in His presence. It causes us to separate ourselves from Him, which leads to our death.

Mike: However, you and I interpret this fact in different and contradicting ways. I believe it is a cancer that can be, and was, transferred to Jesus, and will be transferred to Satan. It is also passed on from generation to generation.

Tom: You're interpreting it in an unnecessarily complicated and arbitrary fashion. Once again, the problem of sin is in us. It is our characters which are out of harmony with God and His law. That's what needs to be fixed. The Plan of Salvation is all about how God fixes us, how He brings our characters into harmony with Him.

Tom, I don’t have much more to add. I think you understand more of my meaning than you indicate. But to clarify and summarize my comments . . .

When someone says ‘I was born again during such and such a revival meeting’, they mean it as they know others will understand it. They don’t doubt that people will know they are talking about spiritual rebirth. The same applies to being washed by the blood of Christ. Children can and do grasp the meaning of that. As I stated earlier, blood and truth do not equate. The truth in theory cannot save us – even the truth of the gospel. I hesitate to say more because you seem ready to quibble, and I hesitate because it’s a deep topic that isn’t easy to articulate accurately, but I’ll finish with this: The blood of Christ I believe is a point at which divinity and humanity meet or combine. The 'life is in the blood' I think applies to Christ's divine nature as well as his human nature. The Holy Spirit takes this spiritual but real and precious commodity and through the blood makes the truth personal to us, convincing us of sin righteousness and judgment. If we follow the will of God as the Spirit interprets the true intent of scripture to us, the blood of Christ has it’s intended regenerating, cleansing effect.

Mark, I was in no sense wanting to quible. I just want to understand what you're saying. I'm interested in your opinion. I'm sorry to say, I'm still not quite getting it. Evidently you think you're being clear, but I don't. I'm not intentionally playing dumb.

I don't see how you're understanding things differently than I am. If you think you are understanding something differently than I am, then please point out what you see the difference to be, because evidently you are understanding me better than I am understanding you.

I'm particularly confused by your use of the word "literal." You insisted that you believe the blood of Christ is literal, yet every explanation I have seen where you say what you use the term in a non-literal way. On the contrary, you are using it the same as I use it, as far as I can tell. The only difference I'm seeing at this point is that you have in mind what seems to me to be an odd definition of the word "literal," which is why I asked you to explain what you think it means.

quote:

---

The Holy Spirit takes this spiritual but real and precious commodity and through the blood makes the truth personal to us, convincing us of sin righteousness and judgment. If we follow the will of God as the Spirit interprets the true intent of scripture to us, the blood of Christ has it’s intended regenerating, cleansing effect.

---

I'm not quite sure what this means. What does "through the blood makes the truth personal to us" mean? What I would say is that Christ did in fact give His life for us, and the Holy Spirit communicates this spiritual and real truth to us through our minds and makes the truth real and personal to us, convincing us of sin, righteousness and judgment. Do you disagree with this? Do you mean something other than this?

When you write "If we follow the will of God as the Spirit interprets the true intent of scripture to us, the blood of Christ has its intended regenerating, cleansing effect" I understand this to mean that Christ's having given His life will have its intended regenerating, cleansing effect. Do you agree with this? Do you mean something other than this?

Thank you for your response. I do hope I'm being clear.