I admit that unless one has had the desire to actually understand what Tom, John B. or myself have written, all of these posting may seem a bit tedious. Obviously some have drawn hasty conclusions because they have skimmed, hunting for things to attack or be offended by. I seriously think time would be more profitably spent in deflecting Pope Counters, Sanctuary Scoffers, Instant Perfectionists and in helping uncertain Adventists and vistors learn the Bible the Pioneer's way, through prayerful study and Christian gentlemanliness with those who don't see the same way you do .

So perhaps a recap (if I may) will help those who have not had the time, or desire, to read here.

(This is solely my ideas; John B., Tom and I do not "counsel together" about what to write, and do not know each other at all, except through this forum)

1. God the Father is not at odds with the Son; what Christ does is what the Father does. There is no "good cop/bad cop" game with Them. OT and NT agree as to His character.

2. God created man with free-will, and will not violate that. Therefore He will never force His Presense upon anyone where He is not wanted. Sinners get what they ask for: "Leave me alone, Jesus!" However, he will maintain basic lifeforce in sinners as long as there is a faint chance of their repenting.

3. Sin kills because it is anti-Christ, or anti-Life. The Bible usually equates sin as a principlewith leprosy, blindness, deafness, lameness or hemorrhaging. These maladies slowly cripple and kill (Try walking beside the highway blind or deaf) Acts of sin are symptoms of the disease of sin, Satan's children, coming from a stony heart.

4. When humans, singularly or as nations, reject Christ after long repeated attempts by Him to reach them in love by prophets, messengers or His witness in Nature itself, Christ is left no alternative but to leave them to their own desires, or "give them up" or "deliver them up" to the forces they love: Satan's hands.

5. In horrific emergencies, where there were no better ways to keep the bloodline of the Saviour intact, God has allowed rebellious Israel to kill demon-possessed, absolutely unrepentable Satan-worshippers bent on destroying God's people, He has with heavy heart instructed them how to swiftly and mercifully kill. God only knows when this is neccessary, and no human has the ability to discern this in advance. Popes, Puritans and have never had these orders. But Satan will urge them to use these occassions as an excuse.
Mt Carmel, and Elijah are type and anti-type for the Last Days before His second coming.Faithful Adventists are slated as the next victims.

6. Christ died because the accumulated sins of trillions of sinners, past, present and future, He willingly took upon Himself in the Garden and then to the Cross. Only He could take that burden. The Father did not kill Him. That is an accusation that comes from the evil one. The sinful actions of the Jews, Romans and their leaders set Christ on the cross, but the separating cloud of sin is what broke His heart, not the pain of the Cross, nor the Hand of His Father.

7. The glory of God, His recreating and dynamic Power will create a New Earth and simulatantiously destroy all those that hate Light and Truth. Full Light always makes full dark disappear. If souls repent, are truly born again and learn to live in the "fire of His glory" now, the consuming fire will be Life and Warmth, not terror and exposure.

Tom,

The Word of God is not a book of systematic theology; doctrines are not clearly systematized there, and it took centuries for Christians to have a clearer view of the truths presented there. It took centuries for people to have a clearer view on the Trinity, on the atonement, on justification, and so on, and this clearer view was generally obtained in an effort to counteract erroneous views that arose from time to time. As to the atonement, the view which prevailed in the early church (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine) was that it was the devil who made the cross necessary (God had to pay a ransom to Satan). It seems it was Athanasius and Ambrose who first referred to Christ as having borne that which the sinner deserves to bear, but this view was fully developed only with Anselm and, in its turn, Anselm’s view was adopted and improved by the reformers.
I found a good and brief summary of all the views of the atonement here:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5951/ths506a.html

As I did this quick search to reply to your post, I verified that Ellen White’s view borrows the phraseology and ideas of all the theories - the satisfaction theory, the moral influence theory, the governmental theory and the penal-substitution theory. Even though she does not borrow much from the ransom theory, which is erroneous, she does say that Christ had to redeem the dominion that Adam had lost to Satan. It is clear that her position is a mix of all these.

Tom: The site you quoted missed the viewpoint I was presenting, which has been termed "Christus Victor" by Gustav Aulen. This was the classical view held by the early Christians. The idea that Satan was paid off is not essential to the view. The essential idea is that Christ's life, death and ressurrection won the victory over the powers of sin, death and the devil.

I've only been able to find one decent site so far that presents the Christus Victor viewpoint. Here it is:
http://www.sharktacos.com/God/cross1.html

I agree with your point about the Bible not being a treatise on Systematic Theology. It's ironic that you make this point, because this is an argument the Christus Victor adherents commonly make. The Bible presents the story of the confict of good and evil; the story of Jesus Christ. It is embracing this story that reconciles us to God. The whole purpose of Christ's ministry was to reveal the Father that we might be set right with God. Christ won the victory over the powers of sin, death, and the devil.

The noon of the papacy was the midnight of the world, as EGW puts it. I find it interesting that you place your faith in a theory which was developed at high noon.

I agree that Ellen White used references to all three theories to communicate, which is a reasonable thing for her to do, as she was trying to reach different minds. Similarly Jesus told the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, because those with whom He was communicating had these erroneous views. This does not mean that Christ Himself held these views. There is no Scriptural basis for the satisfaction theory of the atonement. What Waggoner pointed out is true:

quote:

---

It is the height of absurdity to say that God is so angry with men that he will not forgive them unless something is provided to appease his wrath, and that therefore he himself offers the gift to himself, by which he is appeased.0 "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death." Col. 1:21, 22.

Heathen and Christian Propitiation. The Christian idea of propitiation is that set forth above. The heathen idea, which is too often held by professed Christians, is that men must provide a sacrifice to appease the wrath of their god. All heathen worship is simply a bribe to their gods to be favourable to them. If they thought that their gods were very angry with them, they would provide a greater sacrifice, and so human sacrifices were offered in extreme cases. They thought, as the worshipers of Siva in India do to-day, that their god was gratified by the sight of blood. http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/aor/rom03.htm

---

There is no idea in Scripture of God's wrath being appeased by the offering of His Son as a sacrifice. This is a pagan idea.

Old Tom: Many items have been presented. "Christ by His wonderful work in giving His life restored the whole race of men to favor with God." That's saying the same thing as Wallenkampf in other words. Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott all presented the idea, as I quoted extensively, and EGW endorsed their teachings on this subject as highly as possible.

R: Tom, as I said, “restored the whole race of men to favor with God” refers to salvation and therefore is provisional.

Tom: How could the phrase "restored the whole race of men" possibly be provisional??? How could she possibly have phrased this in a way that you would accept it as not provisional? Look at the wording "RESTORED the WHOLE RACE". If it were provisional it would say "MIGHT RESTORE" and "THOSE WHO BELIEVE". It seems to me you're reading your own ideas into Ellen G. White's writings here just as you are in Romans 5:18. Both Ellen White and Paul are being as clearly universal as it is possible for language to make one.

R: This passage makes the subject clearer:

“Those who claim to be descendants of Abraham have attempted to number Israel, as though the gift of eternal life belonged to a select few. They would have the benefits of salvation limited to their own nation. But God has placed every individual of our race under divine favor, and all are called upon to contribute to God's glory and to the advancement of his kingdom. Individuals and nations will be held responsible for the grace of God given them through Jesus Christ. Christ came eating with publicans and sinners, giving them lessons day by day in his association with them. Leaving the ninety and nine in the fold, he went out into the wilderness after the one lost lamb. He said, ‘I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’ And his lesson to Simon was, To whom much is forgiven, the same loveth much. {YI, August 5, 1897 par. 1}

“Human selfishness would make a monopoly of the salvation purchased at so great a cost. But Christ died to offer the gift of eternal life to all, and he sends his messengers that they may present the truth, the gift of God's grace, to all. God cannot display the knowledge of his will and the wonders of his grace unless he has his witnesses among men. It is his plan that those who are partakers of this great salvation through Jesus Christ should be his missionaries, bodies of light throughout the world, living epistles, known and read of all men. Their faith and works should testify that they have not received the grace of God in vain.” {YI, August 5, 1897 par. 2}

Tom: I understand the first statement which states that all are placed under divine favor and called upon to cooperate to God's glory. This goes along with what Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 5:14, 15 where he states that if one died for all, then all died (i.e. all died in Christ) to the end that those who live (by virture of Christ's death) might not live for themselves, but for Him who died for them. In other words, to the death of Christ all owe even their earthly life. All are indebted to Christ for an infinite gift, which they may pack back by giving themselves in service to the One who died for them, which is their reasonable service.

I didn't see how the second quote fit in. The 1SM 343 quote is not provisional, but your quote is.

Old Tom: The parallel in Romans 5:18 is destroyed if you take that view. "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The point is that to as many as Adam's offense resulted in judgment and condemnation, to just as many Christ's rightouesness (or "act of righteousness" -- it's in the singular) resulted in "justification of life". This can't be justification by faith because only some are justified by faith, not all.

R: By the offence of one judgment came upon all man to condemnation, because by transmitting his sinful nature to his posterity, Adam opened the way for all to sin and thus to partake of the same condemnation; on the other hand, through Christ the free gift of God’s grace came upon all men and all can be justified and have life.

Tom: This does violence to the Greek text, as well as to Paul's thought. The verb is in the aorist, indicating a completed task at some specific time in the past, as is also the case in Romans 5:12; i.e. all "sinned" at some specific point in the past, namely when Adam sinned; judgment "came" upon all men at a specific time, when Adam sinned. Justification of life "came" (past tense, aorist) upon all ( that is, everyone, not just those who believe) at a specific point in time, which was when Christ died on the cross. It was this act of righteousness which resulted in justification of life for all men.

R: That not all choose to accept this gift does not invalidate the fact that the gift came upon all.

Tom: Certainly not. It's irrelevant, at least to Romans 5:18, which is not making the point that a gift came upon all but that all were justified by Christ, just as all had been condemned by Adam. There's nothing a person can do to invalidate something which was done to them before they were born. Note that all the action in Romans 5:18 (as well as 1SM 343) is in the past.

R: As the article I referred to you yesterday points out, this was the view of Waggoner himself until 1896, when he made this comment on Romans chapter 5 in an article that appeared in the Signs of the Times:

“The text says that ‘by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.’ Some one may ask, ‘Why are not all made righteous by the obedience of One?’ The reason is that they do not wish to be. If men were counted righteous simply because One was righteous eighteen hundred years ago, then all would have to be righteous by the same obedience. There would be no justice in counting righteousness to one and not to all, if it were in that way. But we have seen that it is not so.” E. J. Waggoner, “The Free Gift,” Signs of the Times, March 12, 1896. (In this same article Waggoner also clearly states that we are not under condemnation for Adam's sin, but rather, because “All have sinned, and, therefore, all are in condemnation.”)

Tom: Waggoner wrote this:

quote:

---

"Justification of Life." "By the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." There is no exception here. As the condemnation came upon all, so the justification comes upon all. Christ has tasted death for every man. He has given himself for all. Nay, he has given himself to every man. The free gift has come upon all. The fact that it is a free gift is evidence that there is no exception. If it came upon only those who have some special qualification, then it would not be a free gift.

---

If you're really interested in what Waggoner wrote, why not read what he actually wrote, rather than just reading what someone else wrote about what he wrote. Reading someone's writings only second-hand is a very poor way of trying to ascertain what the person actually taught.


Old Tom:"I don't agree with this idea of Waggoner's, so that must not be the part she was endorsing."

R: No. This idea of Waggoner is not in harmony with what Ellen White says, so that must not be the part she was endorsing.

Tom: That's just what I said above! You are assuming you are a better judge of truth than both Waggoner and Ellen G. White. If she wrote that his view was a "clear as sunlight" and "truth", how could it be wrong from beginning to end?

You do recognize that there was a controversy regarding the Covenants, correct? And that Waggoner was on one side, and the leading breathen on the other. EGW endorsed Waggoner's view against theirs. Now you are taking the viewpoint of those who opposed Waggoner, and saying that Ellen G. White, in endorsing Waggoner, was actually thinking along the lines of those who were opposing Waggoner!

Please explain to me what it is about Waggoner's view of the Covenants that differed from those who opposed him which Ellen G. White endorsed.

R: I never said I didn’t agree with him without showing clearly where he disagrees with Ellen White.

Tom: He didn't disagree with her! That would be impossible. She said that if his views agreed with hers, then they were "truth." Immediately after that she wrote that they were "truth." What possible conclusion could one make other than she believed her views to agree with his? There's also the problem I pointed out above, which is that the endorsement of Waggoner's view took place in a context. The context was that there were those who were disagreeing with him (who were arguing the viewpoint you hold). She endorsed his view against theirs (and yours). Finally you stumble at his very definition of "covenant," which would mean you disagree with pretty much every facet of his view on the Covenants. So how can you hold that Ellen White endorsed Waggoner's view while simultaneously disagreeing with it? (Unless you think Ellen White was wrong in endorsing it; that's the only possible explanation I can think of).

My posts put what he says and what Ellen White says side by side.

Old Tom:How do you figure that? Both Waggoner and Ellen G. White are to be judged by God and His Word. She never claimed to be greater than them.

R: This is simply absurd.

T: How is it absurd? She said she would be as a little child. When asked why she didn't bring the light they did, she replied that God had given them a gift that He hadn't given to her. She said she would soak up the life-giving rays, and encouraged others to do so. Where is there anyplace during the time she was endorsing their writings where she claimed her writings were to be held in greater esteem than the message God was giving to the ones she was endorsing?

R: Ellen White’s writings were already judged and approved by the Word of God.

Tom: What does this mean? "Already judged." Already judged when? She repeatedly stated that she was not infallible, and her writings were to be judged by Scripture. She never asserted they were "already judged."

R: What she says was given under inspiration, while what Waggoner or any other writer says was not. Therefore, if what they say contradicts what she says, it is simply wrong.

Tom: That's a very simplistic way of looking at things. She never claimed to be infallible. She also claimed that Scripture is not infallible. We are not fundamentalists.

This isn't even the issue. The issue is whether God gave light to those whom Ellen White endorsed, and she maintained over and over and over again that God did, and that we should lay hold of that light. The way to lay hold of said light is to read the messages God gave us and believe them.

Old Tom: Why do you understand me to disagree with you on this point?

R: I say God is not arbitrary in removing the lives of people directly or indirectly, by any means He deems appropriate. In order to save those who can still be saved, he must sometimes remove the incorrigible sinners.

Tom: I don't recall discussing this subject. I've been discussing the destruction of the wicked at the judgment, and have argued that it is not by an arbitrary act of power that God destroys the wicked, rather they are destroyed because they reap that which they have sown. At first the unfallen angels did not understand this, and they would have misunderstood Satan and his friends as being executed by God rather than suffering the "inevitable results of sin." If the wicked died not because of their sin but because of some action on God's part unrelated to the direct effect of sin, that would be arbitrary. This is what I've said.

I liked your post, Phil, especially #5 which stated a difficult thing to communicate very well, I think. I'd like some clarification on point 6. What does it mean to say "Christ died because the accumulated sins of trillions of sinners, past, present and future He willingly took upon Himself"? (I'm not disagreeing, just looking for clarification as to what taking the accumlated sins of trillions of sinners means -- ty)

Tom made a salient point: If you're really interested in what Waggoner wrote, why not read what he actually wrote, rather than just reading what someone else wrote about what he wrote. Reading someone's writings only second-hand is a very poor way of trying to ascertain what the person actually taught.

This has been a real candor problem among many SDA pundits since, oooooohhh, 1888. The fear/angst some SDAs display over researching beyond what is on sale at the ABC store, or beyond what someone once whispered to them, or what their pastor told them, is a sad testimony of their faith in the Holy Spirit to actually guide them to "all Truth". A little practical experience is all that's needed; "He is faithful who promised.." to lead us, and no other.

As for Christ's horrific death, by the rolling on Him the mountain of the human race's sins, [see 5BC 1127.1] all at once, spanning all human time, He became the Magnet of the sin disease, as I call it. Only fully God and fully man has the ability to do that. Sin-bearer means that He carried all the species of man's sins, records of sins as well as the actually sin-disease itself. Keep in mind: to cure a leper from peeling skin,nodules, ulcers, white scaly scabs, and deformities, without eradicating the bacterium (Mycobacterium leprae) is no "cure" at all.

It is my contention that Christ was veiled on the Cross by the Father's dark cloud of His attendance (see DA 753.4 through 754.3) in order to spare the onlookers from instant destruction by His glory, as EGW points out, but perhaps to angelic, and other humans through the universe the petrifying sight of Christ actually "absorbing" the wages of the sins in toto. I understand that He experienced all the horrors of sin so that He could in tangible terms know as a Man that "for thy sake [He]becomes sin itself. {DA 755.1}

But I think, Tom you may be asking me how He could take the sins of the yet unborn. Well, it's the same question as "How could He take the sins of the unrepentant?" He didn't take the records of their sins, as they had nothing recorded yet. But He did take the Sin Disease and crush it by providing the vaccine for all time, Himself. He conquered Satan's weapon, Death.

All, while living, have but to ask for the Vaccine, take it as prescribed and stay away from leper colonies.

Old Tom:I agree with your point about the Bible not being a treatise on Systematic Theology. It's ironic that you make this point, because this is an argument the Christus Victor adherents commonly make.

R: What I mean is that in the Bible, doctrines are not presented in a systematic way. This does not mean that it is wrong to systematize doctrines.

T: Right.

Old Tom:This was the classical view held by the early Christians.

R: It was one of the views among many others like satisfaction of law and justice, substitution and satisfaction, etc. This link provides a well-done research on the subject:

http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/4-3/4_CULVER_FINAL.htm

T: I read the article, and it is evident to me that those commenting were reading their own views into the views of the fathers. This is actually quite obvious. For example:

quote:

---

Harnack once remarked that "Whoever looks away from the formulas to the spirit will find everywhere in the writings of Augustine a stream of Pauline faith."

---

I don't see anything of "Pauline faith" in Augustine's writings. Augustine's whole conception was wrong from beginning to end regarding God's work in salvation history. Yet to one who shares Augustine's misgivings it will appear that Paul shares the same view. So when one who has been shaped by Augustine, and thus to view Paul in an Augustinian way rather than a Pauline way, see things which are along the lines with which he already thinks, he approves, calling it a "stream of Augustinian faith." This represents a bias on the part of the reviewer. I did not find any such bias in Gustav Aulen, and while there are those who have disputed his findings, I'm not aware of anyone questioning his lack of bias.

The author of the article himself referred to "glimmerings" "shafts of light". The article had the feel of someone looking for something specific and then rejoicing when a "glimmering" was found. Aulen's approach was much more detached, where he looked at what the various author's were saying, without looking to find something in particular as an agenda.

Having said that, a couple of the quotes were interesting, including one by Athanasius and Gregory were interesting. The one by Athanasius, however, was not an actual quote from Athanasius, but a quote from someone else favorable to the point of the view of the author of Athanasius. The same thing applies to the Gregory quote.

So the most impressive quotes were those which were in actuality quoting someone else who was quoting them, and the someone else had an agenda, as did the person making the second-hand quote. So that's not very impressive scholarship.

Aulen, on the other hand, quoted directly from the primary sources, and had a detached approach.


Old Tom: The noon of the papacy was the midnight of the world, as EGW puts it. I find it interesting that you place your faith in a theory which was developed at high noon.

R: The theory was not created by Anselm; he just systematized it. In the research above you will see that these ideas were already prevalent in the first centuries.

T: I didn't see that. Even the author, who was desparately trying to find something, characterized what he found as "glimmerings" no "prevalent." If you relook at the argument, you can see that in no way could "prevalent" be used to characterize the satisfaction idea, even using the findings of the author himself, who was predisposed to the idea. It is also not at all clear that the offering to be given was to God or to Satan. The quote from Augustine was clearly to Satan, so that's not at all Anselm's idea, and the other quotes were unclear. So there were at best a couple of quotes which *might* have had an idea which was similar to Anselm's.

On the other hand, the evidence that they early Fathers held the Christus Victor view is prodigious. Paragraph upon paragraph could be cited of those holding the view, not just a couple of snippets. That this was their predominant view is not in question.


Old Tom: I agree that Ellen White used references to all three theories to communicate, which is a reasonable thing for her to do, as she was trying to reach different minds. Similarly Jesus told the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, because those with whom He was communicating had these erroneous views. This does not mean that Christ Himself held these views.

R: It is completely different. One single instance may be found in Christ’s teachings which used popular beliefs not held by Him, but this was a parable.

T: We have a lot more material available from Ellen White than Christ, so it's not surprising that it only appeared once. My point was that God works with the false preconceptions of man to communicate truth.

R: Ellen White leans heavily on the terminology and ideas of the satisfaction, governmental and penal views. If these are wrong ideas, her writings are misleading.

T: Only in the same way the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is misleading.

Old Tom:There is no idea in Scripture of God's wrath being appeased by the offering of His Son as a sacrifice. This is a pagan idea.

R: Who is defending this idea? I know of no SDA writer who defends this idea. This is fighting an enemy that does not exist, like Don Quixote.

T: Ok, so you agree with me that Romans 3 which speaks of propitiation is not referring to God's wrath being propitiated? It appeared to me on the basis of previous posts that you were disagreeing with me on this point.

Old Tom:How could the phrase "restored the whole race of men" possibly be provisional???

R: The race had been debarred from God’s favor in Adam, and it was restored to God’s favor in Christ. As I said, our relationship with Adam is physical, but with Christ it is spiritual. Simple.

T: I never disagreed that the Romans 5:18 was dealing with our physical life. I've been asserting that the whole time. "To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life." This is clearly dealing with our physical life. So I'm not seeing what it is about the concept I'm presenting that you are disagreeing with.

I'm saying that we owe our physical lives to the death of Christ; that we owe our physical existence to Him, both on the basis of creation and redemption. It appears to me you are saying the same thing (even if you disagree with the application of certain Scriptural texts to the idea, you appear to be agreeing with the idea). If you are disagreeing with it, what is it that you disagree with?

Old Tom:I didn't see how the second quote fit in.

R: There is no second quote. Both paragraphs belong to the same quote. The whole passage is clearly speaking about salvation when it says that God restored the race to divine favor: “They would have the benefits of salvation limited to their own nation. But God has placed every individual of our race under divine favor[/b]...”

T: Being placed under divine favor results in two things:
1) Physical life.
2) Eternal life.

The first is not provisional. The second is. Both were made possible by Christ's death.

Old Tom:This does violence to the Greek text, as well as to Paul's thought. The verb is in the aorist...

R: Which verb in Rom. 5:18 is in the aorist? There is no verb in v. 18.

T: Sorry. I had Romans 5:12 in mind.

R: Anyway, if there was a verb in v. 18, it would be in the aorist because the whole passage is in the aorist.

T: Agreed.

R: However, the aorist does not always indicate “a completed task at some specific time in the past”. Look, for instance, at v. 21: “so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Both verbs are in the aorist. This does not mean that “sin reigned in death” and “grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life” are “completed tasks at some specific time in the past”, since sin still reigns in death and grace still reigns to eternal life. The aorist only means that these actions began from a certain point.

T: Applying this logic to the text under consideration, Rom. 5:18, then we would have:

1) Sin, and its results (condemnation, judgement), began with Adam's act.
2) Righteousness, and its results, began with Christ's act.

I'm suggesting that Rom. 18 is not talking about multiple acts of sin and righteousness, but one specific act of sin and one specific act of righteousness. I see you suggestion as being possible for 1) above, but not 2). The word is in the singular ("rightouesness") and only makes sense, as far as I can tell, to refer this to Christ's death on the cross. Do you disagree?

Old Tom: Waggoner wrote this:

R: First, I don’t have access to the article.

T: Sure you do. I cited the source. It's on the internet.

R: Second, Is the quote you provided from the same article? If it is, then he is saying that justification came upon all provisionally, for he would not contradict himself in the same article, unless he was crazy. And what he said was: “If men were counted righteous simply because One was righteous eighteen hundred years ago, then all would have to be righteous by the same obedience. There would be no justice in counting righteousness to one and not to all, if it were in that way. But we have seen that it is not so.”

T: Waggoner used the word "justification" to mean the same thing as "justification by faith," as far as I'm aware. He communicated the same concept which I've referred to as "corporate justification," but using different words (such as the words quotes). Similarly EGW did not use the term "corporate justification" but communicated the concept in saying "to the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life" and "Christ by His wonderful work in giving His life restored the whole race of men to favor with God." Prescott did use the word "justification" in the sense I've mentioned. Jones spoke of Christ "undoing" that which Adam had done.

Old Tom:You are assuming you are a better judge of truth than both Waggoner and Ellen G. White.

R: No. I just work on the basis of facts. And what he wrote is contradicting what she wrote.

T: Then she would be contracting herself. Because she wrote that if his view agreed with hers then it was "truth", and immediately classified Waggoner's view as "truth." Another possibility is that you are misunderstanding what EGW wrote, and she actually was correct that Waggoner's view was "truth" and "clear as sunlight".

Old Tom:Please explain to me what it is about Waggoner's view of the Covenants that differed from those who opposed him which Ellen G. White endorsed.

R: If I remember correctly, the law, especially as a ministration of death and condemnation and as a schoolmaster.

T: Could you flesh this out a bit. What does this have to do with Waggoner's view on the Covenants? How does Waggoner's view of the Covenants being "truth" have to do with the law being a ministration of death and condemnation and as a schoolmaster?

Old Tom:Already judged when?

R: At the moment she was accepted as a prophet. She is as fallible as the Bible prophets.

They made little mistakes in mathematics, in science, little slips in mentioning a prophet as reference when another one should be mentioned, and so on. But they couldn’t make mistakes in doctrine, because the truth which the Lord sends to men cannot be mixed with error.

T: This seems to be a bit restrictive, but I'll let that go. How is the truth that she received any different than the truth Jones and Waggoner received? Given she is a prophet, then mustn't it be the case that the "truth" and "light" which Jones and Waggoner received was "truth" and "light". Given she is a prophet, and she admonisthes us to lay hold of the truth and light which God gave to Jones and Waggoner, shouldn't we do that?

Old Tom:I don't recall discussing this subject.

R: You didn’t. But I thought it was reasonable to conclude that what is considered arbitrary for God to do after the millennium would also be considered arbitrary before the millennium.

T: That's a reasonable conclusion. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread on it.

There are those who are presenting the view on God's wrath and the destruction of the wicked which hold both points of view regarding God's actions in this life. To me they seem like two problems. To some it may seem as one. A. G. Maxwell himself, who is one of the chief proponents of the view we have been presenting, holds to a similar view as you do regarding the flood and Sodom and Gemorrah. So it's not necessary to see the flood and Sodom and Gemorrah the same way to have the same view on the destruction of the wicked. I've chosen up to now to stay out of this other discussion because it's a more difficult one, IMO, whereas the destruction of the wicked at the judgment is a simple one.

"Augustine of Hippo", a semi-converted Platoist philosopher, is hardly a beacon of light for Protestants of any stripe to be following, Roseangela. Despite the pandering of him as a "father of the church", in violation of Matthew 23:9,he is certainly not the father of this church, nor any earlier bands of Sabbath-keepers.
That is an historical fact I will show upon request, but do not want to side-track the thrust of the topic.

I will leave Tom to point out the weaknesses of your points of view, however I must question your usages of the ecumenical Trinity College's "theology"school papers. This is an internet correspondence school and a proud bed-fellow of the Canterbury Christ Church University College, the archbishopric seminary of the High Church of England and yet you seem utterly indifferent to the heaven approved writings of Adventist scholars and evangelists, Dr. Waggoner and Elder Alonzo T. Jones. I am also surprised that you would discard them after admitting you have not read much of their works nor own any, if I remember them correctly.

PS: Canterbury Christ Church University College was founded on the memorial site of the "other Augustine" of the 6th century AD, the genocidal murderer of Sabbath-keeping Britains. He was the bloody stooge of the papacy, who with Catholic French Normans conquered the original Christians of Great Britain, the Remnant Church in the Wilderness.

Ikan,

I found the research objective and unbiased. The source is not important. We must test all things and hold fast to what is good.

Tom,

The church fathers didn’t have a systematized position about the atonement, no work was ever written specifically about it, and all we have are scattered thoughts. Therefore, I question the fact that the early church (at least the church fathers) had a definite position about the atonement. Origen, for instance, proposes at the same time ideas which fit in the Christus Victor theory and in the ransom theory. This Christus Victor idea appeared more frequently than the others because of the social context. As the website you recommended points out, “in the first-century church this view of the struggle of the power of Love to free us from the oppressive and corruptive System was a common theme as the church struggled under the oppressive powers of the Roman Empire.”
Anyway, the fact is that, because the Bible does not have a systematic approach, the edifice of truth was erected little by little, and many contributed to it. The doctrine of justification by faith, for instance, was only systematized at the 16th century. It should be noticed, however, that because we see some truth in a certain position, this does not mean we accept the whole position. We believe in the Trinity, for instance, but not exactly as it is exposed by the CC. As SDAs, we have guidance for Bible interpretation in the writings of Ellen White, and through her writings we can know which interpretations are correct and which are not.

quote:

---

T: Only in the same way the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is misleading.

---

In a parable or in an allegory, two dead people can entertain a conversation, trees can speak, animals can represent human beings, and so on. This is not misleading, for every reasonable person knows that these things are not real. But expressing wrong ideas in non-figurative texts is misleading.

quote:

---

T: Ok, so you agree with me that Romans 3 which speaks of propitiation is not referring to God's wrath being propitiated? It appeared to me on the basis of previous posts that you were disagreeing with me on this point.

---

I never thought in these terms, of God’s wrath being propitiated.

quote:

---

It appears to me you are saying the same thing (even if you disagree with the application of certain Scriptural texts to the idea, you appear to be agreeing with the idea).

---

Yes, of course I agree that all of us, sinners and saints, owe our physical life to Christ. I just disagree that Romans 5:18 is speaking about this.

quote:

---

I see you suggestion as being possible for 1) above, but not 2). The word is in the singular ("rightouesness") and only makes sense, as far as I can tell, to refer this to Christ's death on the cross. Do you disagree?

---

No, I agree that it probably refers to Christ’s death. But why do you think it’s not possible for #2? Righteousness and justification did come with Christ’s sacrifice, although its effects are retroactive.

quote:

---

T: Could you flesh this out a bit. What does this have to do with Waggoner's view on the Covenants? How does Waggoner's view of the Covenants being "truth" have to do with the law being a ministration of death and condemnation and as a schoolmaster?

---

The historical context of the Minneapolis conference is this:

The apostle Paul, in Galatians 3, wrote of the "added law" in verse 19, and of the "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ," that in verse 24. Among Seventh-day Adventists for two years there had been controversy over which law he meant.{3BIO 387.1}

Butler was deeply suspicious of the work of Jones and Waggoner, and from reports that had come to him he felt certain Ellen White was in their camp. Thus the omens were beginning to appear of what was before them in the more than three weeks of the institute and the conference. To Mary she [Ellen White] wrote: {3BIO 392.7}

“Elders Smith and Butler are very loath to have anything said upon the law in Galatians, but I cannot see how it can be avoided. We must take the Bible as our standard and we must diligently search its pages for light and evidence of truth.”--Ibid. {3BIO 392.8}

For two years the issue of the law in Galatians had smoldered, and when it was taken up, bitterness and accusations were unleashed. {3BIO 399.2}

The focal point was verse 24 of chapter 3, which reads: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." There was no argument among Seventh-day Adventists concerning the believer's being justified by faith, although this vital truth was sadly neglected at the time. In 1888 the sharp difference of opinion, as when J. H. Waggoner wrote on the subject in 1854, was whether the law brought to view as the schoolmaster was the moral or the ceremonial law. Thus two issues were bound up in a study of "the law and the gospel" in such a way that if one topic suffered in bitter debate, both were affected. The great adversary took advantage of this. {3BIO 399.3}

Regarding an early-morning workers' meeting, she [Ellen white] reported: {3BIO 405.3}

“The remark was made, ‘If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith.’” {3BIO 405.4}

Although Ellen White said neither position was completely right, because the law in Galatians 3 refers to both the moral and the ceremonial law, she sided with Waggoner, because the main reference is to the moral law:

"'The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith' (Galatians 3:24). In this Scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. The law reveals sin to us, and cause us to feel our need of Christ, and to flee unto Him for pardon and peace by exercising repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." {1MR 130.2}

Besides, Waggoner said this in the chapter “The Adoption of Sons”: “The difference between the two covenants may be put briefly thus: In the covenant from Sinai we ourselves have to do with the law alone, while in the covenant from above, we have the law in Christ. In the first instance it is death to us, since the law is sharper than any two-edged sword, and we are not able to handle it without fatal results; but in the second instance we have the law ‘in the hand of a Mediator.’ In the one case it is what we can do; in the other case it is what the Spirit of God can do.”

This position on the law as a ministration of death and condemnation is very emphasized by Ellen White after 1888 and also seems to have been a new insight to SDAs, and perhaps many felt that this view weakened our position in favor of the observance of the law.

R: Ikan,

I found the research objective and unbiased. The source is not important. We must test all things and hold fast to what is good.

T: I don't think this speaks well of your objectivity. It appears to me the only criterion you are using is whether the source agrees with your point of view (pardon me if I'm incorrectly assessing what you're doing here, but this really is what it looks like to me, for reasons given).

As I pointed out, the "research" you quoted was simply someone who referred to someone else's writings about yet someone else. That's not research, and it's neither objective or unbiased. It's very clear from reading the article that the author had a point of view in mind before he started his research, and was looking for for what he wanted to find, which he found in third parties that quoted on the parties he should have been looking at himself.

R: Tom,

The church fathers didn’t have a systematized position about the atonement, no work was ever written specifically about it, and all we have are scattered thoughts. Therefore, I question the fact that the early church (at least the church fathers) had a definite position about the atonement.

T: As the article writer pointed out, salvation and atonement were all lumped together. This isn't simply because of a lack of systematification, but due to the way they conceived of the matter. That is, the atonement wasn't conceived of as a separate thing of Christ's ministry.

R: Origen, for instance, proposes at the same time ideas which fit in the Christus Victor theory and in the ransom theory. This Christus Victor idea appeared more frequently than the others because of the social context. As the website you recommended points out, “in the first-century church this view of the struggle of the power of Love to free us from the oppressive and corruptive System was a common theme as the church struggled under the oppressive powers of the Roman Empire.”
Anyway, the fact is that, because the Bible does not have a systematic approach, the edifice of truth was erected little by little, and many contributed to it. The doctrine of justification by faith, for instance, was only systematized at the 16th century. It should be noticed, however, that because we see some truth in a certain position, this does not mean we accept the whole position. We believe in the Trinity, for instance, but not exactly as it is exposed by the CC. As SDAs, we have guidance for Bible interpretation in the writings of Ellen White, and through her writings we can know which interpretations are correct and which are not.

T: With the doctrines of the church in general we perceive a greater light at the time of the primitive church, and decreasing light as time goes on, until the Reformation, at which point we see light increasing, until the movement of the SDA church. The Sabbath, state of the death, Christ's ministry in the Sanctuary are several examples of this. The idea that truth was erected little by little until it found its zenith at the midnight of the papacy doesn't fit with this pattern.

The idea of Christus Victor was that Christ by His life, death and resurrection was victorious over the evil powers of sin, death and the devil. This is a very simple idea, which Christians understood for centuries. This idea appears all over the Scriptures, clearly stated in virtually every book of the New Testament (it's also in the Old, but in less direct ways -- at least to our eyes, not being familiar with their cultures).

Old Tom: Only in the same way the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is misleading.

R: In a parable or in an allegory, two dead people can entertain a conversation, trees can speak, animals can represent human beings, and so on. This is not misleading, for every reasonable person knows that these things are not real. But expressing wrong ideas in non-figurative texts is misleading.

T: It's certainly been misleading for millions of Christians. Not only has it been misleading for millions of Christians, Christ *knew* it would be when He told it. The principle this illustrates is that God will communicate using principles which are not perfect or can be misunderstood. As we know God better, we become better able to make sense out of what God is saying.

Old Tom: Ok, so you agree with me that Romans 3 which speaks of propitiation is not referring to God's wrath being propitiated? It appeared to me on the basis of previous posts that you were disagreeing with me on this point.

R: I never thought in these terms, of God’s wrath being propitiated.

T: So you agree with me that it is men who are propitiated by the sacrifice of Christ is Romans 3?

Old Tom: It appears to me you are saying the same thing (even if you disagree with the application of certain Scriptural texts to the idea, you appear to be agreeing with the idea).

R: Yes, of course I agree that all of us, sinners and saints, owe our physical life to Christ. I just disagree that Romans 5:18 is speaking about this.

T: Your disagreement with me started *before* Romans 5:18 entered into the conversation. I started it on the basis of EGW statements and only later gave the Biblical backing for it.

Old Tom: I see you suggestion as being possible for 1) above, but not 2). The word is in the singular ("rightouesness") and only makes sense, as far as I can tell, to refer this to Christ's death on the cross. Do you disagree?

R: No, I agree that it probably refers to Christ’s death. But why do you think it’s not possible for #2? Righteousness and justification did come with Christ’s sacrifice, although its effects are retroactive.

T: Ok, so you agree that Rom. 5:18 is dealing with the one act of disobedience by Adam and the one act of obedience of Christ, His death. You also agree with the concept that Christ by His death enables us to live physically. You just don't think Romans 5:18 is saying this. It seems clear to me that it is, because Paul is making a parallel between the "all" of the effect of Adam and the "all" of the effect of Christ. This is the whole point of the chapter, and if Christ's effect is only on a subset of those impacted by Adam, the whole argument falls apart. However, given you agree with the concept, whether you see it in this particular verse doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Old Tom: Could you flesh this out a bit. What does this have to do with Waggoner's view on the Covenants? How does Waggoner's view of the Covenants being "truth" have to do with the law being a ministration of death and condemnation and as a schoolmaster?

R: The historical context of the Minneapolis conference is this:

The apostle Paul, in Galatians 3, wrote of the "added law" in verse 19, and of the "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ," that in verse 24. Among Seventh-day Adventists for two years there had been controversy over which law he meant.{3BIO 387.1}

Butler was deeply suspicious of the work of Jones and Waggoner, and from reports that had come to him he felt certain Ellen White was in their camp. Thus the omens were beginning to appear of what was before them in the more than three weeks of the institute and the conference. To Mary she [Ellen White] wrote: {3BIO 392.7}

“Elders Smith and Butler are very loath to have anything said upon the law in Galatians, but I cannot see how it can be avoided. We must take the Bible as our standard and we must diligently search its pages for light and evidence of truth.”--Ibid. {3BIO 392.8}

For two years the issue of the law in Galatians had smoldered, and when it was taken up, bitterness and accusations were unleashed. {3BIO 399.2}

The focal point was verse 24 of chapter 3, which reads: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." There was no argument among Seventh-day Adventists concerning the believer's being justified by faith, although this vital truth was sadly neglected at the time. In 1888 the sharp difference of opinion, as when J. H. Waggoner wrote on the subject in 1854, was whether the law brought to view as the schoolmaster was the moral or the ceremonial law. Thus two issues were bound up in a study of "the law and the gospel" in such a way that if one topic suffered in bitter debate, both were affected. The great adversary took advantage of this. {3BIO 399.3}

Regarding an early-morning workers' meeting, she [Ellen white] reported: {3BIO 405.3}

“The remark was made, ‘If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith.’” {3BIO 405.4}

Although Ellen White said neither position was completely right, because the law in Galatians 3 refers to both the moral and the ceremonial law, she sided with Waggoner, because the main reference is to the moral law:

"'The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith' (Galatians 3:24). In this Scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law. The law reveals sin to us, and cause us to feel our need of Christ, and to flee unto Him for pardon and peace by exercising repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." {1MR 130.2}

Besides, Waggoner said this in the chapter “The Adoption of Sons”: “The difference between the two covenants may be put briefly thus: In the covenant from Sinai we ourselves have to do with the law alone, while in the covenant from above, we have the law in Christ. In the first instance it is death to us, since the law is sharper than any two-edged sword, and we are not able to handle it without fatal results; but in the second instance we have the law ‘in the hand of a Mediator.’ In the one case it is what we can do; in the other case it is what the Spirit of God can do.”

This position on the law as a ministration of death and condemnation is very emphasized by Ellen White after 1888 and also seems to have been a new insight to SDAs, and perhaps many felt that this view weakened our position in favor of the observance of the law.

T: That's a nice summary. I agree with most of it, but would emphasize that the teaching of justification by faith was very much different between Butler and his group and Jones and Waggoner. Also it's important to understand the EGW conceptualized righteousness by faith as what was the issue at hand, not simply the law in Galatians. That is, while certain combatants viewed the issue at hand as a debate of which law in Galatians was the right one, she perceived that God was giving us light on the subject of justification by faith. Waggoner himself also perceived that he was preaching righteousness by faith, and this viewpoint is evident in his choice of a title for his pamphlet responding to Butler's pamphlet called "The Law in Galatians" -- Waggoner called his "The Gospel in Galatians."

So summarizing the thought here, God was giving light regarding righteousness by faith -- the "third angel's message in verity" -- to Jones and Waggoner, and their preaching was very distinct form Butler's and others.

Back to the Covenants question. Here is Waggoner's view in a nutshell:

quote:

---

That the covenant and promise of God are one and the same thing, is clearly seen from Gal.3:17, where it appears that to disannul the covenant would be to make void the promise. In Genesis 17 we read that God made a covenant with Abraham to give him the land of Canaan--and with it the whole world--for an everlasting possession; but Gal.3:18 says that God gave it to him by promise. God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them: "Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things." Rom.11:35,36. It is so rare for men to do anything without expecting an equivalent, that theologians have taken it for granted that it is the same with God. So they begin their dissertations on God's covenant with the statement that a covenant is "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things." But God does not make bargains with men, because He knows that they could not fulfil their part. After the flood God made a covenant with every beast of the earth, and with every fowl; but the beasts and the birds did not promise anything in return. Gen.9:9-16. They simply received the favor at the hand of God. That is all we can do. God promises us everything that we need, and more than we can ask or think, as a gift. We give Him ourselves, that is, nothing, and He gives us Himself, that is, everything. That which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at all, they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be a "mutual" affair--a transaction in which they will be considered as on a par with God. But whoever deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact--that we have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything, and gives everything. http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT04RedeemedfromtheCurse.htm

---

What of this view was EGW endorsing? Why were Butler and Smith so wrong in opposing it? Given that Butler and Smith's view was essentially the same as yours, and EGW endorsed Waggoner's over theirs, how is this not endorsing Waggoner's over yours? If she really agreed with essentially everything of Butler's and Smith's view, but had some minor disagreement, but disagreed with virtually all of Waggoner's view, but had a minor agreement, shouldn't she have endorsed Butler and Smith's view? How could she call Waggoner's view "truth" and "clear as sunlight" while warning Butler and Smither that they were wasting their time to present a view different than Waggoner's?