Roseangla Quoting Augustine, Origen, "the Church Fathers" and the mythical "progressive revelation of truth" under the papacy thumb, with no mention of the church in the wilderness, may earn someone a mail-order degree from Trinity College, but it holds no weight among those of us who from study know the mind-set of "the Beast". The blood of millions has been spilled by "scholars" such as these!
Your sources are tainted beyond your imagination, and I plead with you to give them up and re-focus on Adventist sources more bravely, which we will be glad to make available to you, whether online or hardcopy.

Ikan,

Just an explanation for you. The church fathers were only mentioned in this discussion in passing. FYI, I don't care what they said and what they thought. Ellen White has already made the selection for me of what is truth and what is not. But it is undeniable that she accepted some views of Anselm and others. As she said, the gems of truth are hidden in the midst of the rubbish of error, and they must be restored to their proper place.

1- Tom, for our purpose in the discussion we were having, I found that the research was a good summary. It presented all the positions which appeared in the writings of the early church, as well as the quotes which could be of interest as precursors of Anselm’s position. He didn’t say this position was the prevalent one or the only one in the writings of the church fathers, but showed that it wasn’t completely absent either.
Back to the subject, what can be verified is that there were several scattered ideas and no definite position; Christus Victor and ransom were the two ideas which appeared more frequently, with the others appearing occasionally. Besides, most of the ideas were not opposed to each other but, rather, complementary. That’s why both Christus Victor and ransom were defended by Origen. In fact, I don’t know what your purpose was in introducing the argument that Christus Victor was the prevalent theory in the early church. In fact, Christus Victor is both your position and mine. That Christ defeated His enemies at the cross is obvious; but this position does not deal with the core issue, that is, the role of the cross in man’s salvation. In fact, Maxwell’s view is much more akin to the moral influence theory, systematized by Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm.

2-

quote:

---

It's certainly been misleading for millions of Christians.

---

Not so. Christians adopted the pagan view of the soul immortality and then tried to find Bible texts as an excuse to support it, in the same way they did with Sunday.

3-

quote:

---

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

---

Propitiation is, in my view, essentially mediation, or reconciliation. Because of sin, God could no longer approach man and man could no longer approach God; therefore there arose the need of a Mediator. Through Christ, God was reconciled to man and man to God:

“The sin of Adam and Eve caused a fearful separation between God and man. And Christ steps in between fallen man and God, and says to man: ‘You may yet come to the Father; there is a plan devised through which God can be reconciled to man, and man to God; through a mediator you can approach God.’” {AG 154.2}

4-

quote:

---

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.

---

Exactly. I agree that the quote of DA 660 applies to the second probation but disagree that 1 SM 343 can be applied to the second probation. To me, being restored to God’s favor refers to salvation and is provisional. The meaning of this passage to me is the following:

“In the matchless gift of His Son, God has encircled the whole world with an atmosphere of grace as real as the air which circulates around the globe. All who choose to breathe this life-giving atmosphere will live” (SC 68).

5-

quote:

---

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?

---

Could you please elaborate this further? How is my view different from that of Waggoner and similar to that of Butler and Smith?

"This link provides a well-done research on the subject:..."

"I found the research objective and unbiased. The source is not important."

"The church fathers were only mentioned in this discussion in passing. FYI, I don't care what they said and what they thought."

Ok...so I will remember in the future when you promote a link, and support it with arguments, that you are just carelessly tossing it in in passing, and really don't care after all, right? I'm not to take your adjectives to references too seriously, eh?

Ikan,

If you want to participate in the discussion you are welcome, but why sidetracking with nitpicking remarks? Tom initiated the discussion about Anselm and the church fathers, so I made I quick search in order to reply to him. To me the summary presented by this research was brief and up to the point. I didn’t mention it as a reference, but just to have a basis for discussion. I wouldn’t have introduced the subject of the church fathers myself, because I don’t really care about what they said.

Ikan - I value your participation, but agree with her comments regarding snippiness. It's easy to fall into that when discussing points with which we disagree. I've tried to keep my pwn tone good, and have found Rosangela's tone to be good. We obviously disagree about a number of things, but she has treated me respectfully, and I hope I've done the same for her.

I hope you continue in the discussion.

R: 1- Tom, for our purpose in the discussion we were having, I found that the research was a good summary. It presented all the positions which appeared in the writings of the early church, as well as the quotes which could be of interest as precursors of Anselm’s position. He didn’t say this position was the prevalent one or the only one in the writings of the church fathers, but showed that it wasn’t completely absent either.

Tom: He called it a "glimmering". Your comment, I forget what it was, "prevalent" maybe, implied a great deal more.

R:Back to the subject, what can be verified is that there were several scattered ideas and no definite position; Christus Victor and ransom were the two ideas which appeared more frequently, with the others appearing occasionally. Besides, most of the ideas were not opposed to each other but, rather, complementary. That’s why both Christus Victor and ransom were defended by Origen. In fact, I don’t know what your purpose was in introducing the argument that Christus Victor was the prevalent theory in the early church. In fact, Christus Victor is both your position and mine. That Christ defeated His enemies at the cross is obvious; but this position does not deal with the core issue, that is, the role of the cross in man’s salvation.

T: That Christ defeated His enemies at the cross is the whole point. How does this not deal with the core issue? That is the core issue. Man is saved by Christ's defeating our enemies, which includes His work not just on the cross, but His life, death and resurrection. Man participates in Christ's victory by faith.

R: In fact, Maxwell’s view is much more akin to the moral influence theory, systematized by Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm.

T: I disagree. I has much more to do with the Christus Victor theme. The difference between "his" view, which is really Ellen G. White's, as that's where he got it from (actually it's all over the Bible, but I'm not sure he would have seen it without Ellen G. White's books, that would have to be a question for him) and the Christus Victor view is the question as to what the controversy is about. That is, he views the controversy as being over God's character (and this is so clear from EGW's writings that I won't bother to substantiate it, unless you so request)

I don't see much in common with Abelgard's views and Maxwells. There's a superficial agreement in that Abelgard emphasized the atonement involved man's perceiving God's love, but that's about it. Abelgard's ideas involved an example mentality, where we follow Christ as a good moral example. Our rightouesness is by virtue of being good like Christ was. Maxwell's ideas are poles apart from this. The Christus Victor idea is that Christ obtained the victory over our enemies of sin, death and the devil, ushering in a new reign, the reign of the kingdom of God, and we enter into that kingdom by faith. This is very similar to what Maxwell teaches, except that Maxwell uses the word "trust" a lot for "faith", and the phrase "God's character" instead of the phrase "the reign of the character of God."

R: 2-

quote:It's certainly been misleading for millions of Christians.

Not so. Christians adopted the pagan view of the soul immortality and then tried to find Bible texts as an excuse to support it, in the same way they did with Sunday.

T: The same as the web site did in looking among the early fathers for support for Anselm's views (sorry, couldn't resist ).

I disagree. That parable is misleading, or at least a difficulty. I know, because when I was studying to become an SDA it was an obstacle I had to overcome. I wasn't trying to find Bible texts as an excuse to support a view I was holding, but looking to find the truth. Yet God chose to give this parable, in spite of the difficulties it would bring to future readers. God knows that those who sincerely want to know the truth will plod on until they find it, despite superficial things which apparently seem to contradict the truth.

R: 3-

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

R: Propitiation is, in my view, essentially mediation, or reconciliation. Because of sin, God could no longer approach man and man could no longer approach God; therefore there arose the need of a Mediator. Through Christ, God was reconciled to man and man to God:

Tom: What does God being reconciled to man mean? Does it mean anything different than man being brought into harmony with God, or with man being "set right"? If man were set right with God (e.g. by believing in Christ, the whole point of whose ministry was to reveal the Father), would there be something lacking?

As Waggoner pointed out, the word "propitiation" has to do with an appeasement of wrath. You took issue with my suggesting that this wrath is the wrath of man, yet when I say that your view involves God's wrath being appeased, you say I'm misrepresenting your view. So I'm confused. Whose wrath is appeased by the propitiation? If it's man, then we are in agreement. If it's God, then I was correct when I described your view as God's wrath being appeased by Christ.

Do you agree with this analysis?

R: “The sin of Adam and Eve caused a fearful separation between God and man. And Christ steps in between fallen man and God, and says to man: ‘You may yet come to the Father; there is a plan devised through which God can be reconciled to man, and man to God; through a mediator you can approach God.’” {AG 154.2}

4-

Old Tom: 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.

R: Exactly. I agree that the quote of DA 660 applies to the second probation but disagree that 1 SM 343 can be applied to the second probation. To me, being restored to God’s favor refers to salvation and is provisional. The meaning of this passage to me is the following:

“In the matchless gift of His Son, God has encircled the whole world with an atmosphere of grace as real as the air which circulates around the globe. All who choose to breathe this life-giving atmosphere will live” (SC 68).

Tom: I think they mean the same thing too. The grace which encircles the earth is a real thing which cost the blood of Christ and is not simply provisional. There is a provisional aspect to it, that is true, but it is not *only* provisional.

1 Tim. 4:10 says Christ is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. This is the same idea. Christ *is* the Savior of all men, having saved all men from the death which would have resulted due to Adam's sin had Christ not intervened. Christ's death accomplished something for all men; physical life, and the opportunity for eternal life. Both are involved.

The problem with saying that 1SM 343 doesn't involve the second probation is that it explicitly states that Christ did something for the *whole* race, and what He did was accomplished *in the past*. If it were provisional, it would not be something done in the past. The same thing holds for Rom. 5:18.

But again, whether you agree or disagree that a certain passage in EGW or the Bible has to do with the theme or not seems to me to be of small import, provided you agree with me on the concept, which it sounds like you do. If you agree that the second probation that we receive is made possible by Christ's death, and that this is a tangible benefit for every member of the human race, then we are agreeing on a lot.

R: 5-

Old Tom: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?

Could you please elaborate this further? How is my view different from that of Waggoner and similar to that of Butler and Smith?

T: Waggoner believed the following:
1. The Covenants are promises.
2. The Old Covenant was the promise of the people to make themselves righteous.
3. The Old Covenant was initiated by the people.
4. It was not God's idea to establish the Old Covenant, because He already had a perfect covenant in place, the one He made with Abraham. That covenant only came into place because of the people's unbelief.
5. The Covenants are not a matter of time.

If I'm not mistaken, you disagree, along with Butler and Smith, with these 5 points, which are the essential points of Waggoner's position regarding the Old Covenant.

My apologies if I offended you, Roseangela The Lord knows that my purpose was not offense, but clarity, as I am deeply concerned about "debate" sources, references, and texts being used with a poster's accountability.
I did not intend to "nit-pick" or be "snippy", but since my vocal tone and face cannot be seen, there could have been better ways I could have written what I did.

It's the "gleeming" aspect that Tom mentioned coupled with the source of the links and the fuller knowledge I have gained recently concerning any unfounded respect for Augustine, Origen and the whole motley gang of "Fathers" of the Catholic Church that prompted me to comment on your usages of them.

Again: I have found your willingness to discuss very refreshing.

Apologies accepted, Ikan.

About the word "prevalent", I did use it in the sentece "In the research above you will see that these ideas were already prevalent in the first centuries."
Without consulting the dictionary, I thought it would fit.
Now that you and Tom complained, I consulted the dictionary and it gives the following meanings:

1) To be greater in strength or influence; triumph: prevailed against the enemy.
2) To be or become effective; win out: hoped justice would prevail.
3) To be most common or frequent; be predominant: a region where snow and ice prevail.
4) To be in force, use, or effect; be current: an ancient tradition that still prevails.
5) To use persuasion or inducement successfully. Often used with on, upon, or with. See Synonyms at persuade.

I used the word with the forth meaning, but perhaps it was ambiguous? In all sincerity, the meaning I wanted to convey was that of being already in circulation or in existence. [Portuguese: "em voga".]

Tom,
When I said that Ellen White has already made the selection for me of what is truth and what is not, I meant that it is useless to try to establish a position different from that which God revealed to her. I have studied and tested in the Bible for myself our positions on the sabbath, on the soul immortality, on the sanctuary, and so on. The conclusion I reached was the following: you can prove by the Bible that the sabbath was abolished, that the soul is immortal, that Christ entered the most holy place after His ascension; you can prove all this using isolated texts. However, if you consider the whole context of the Bible, you will verify that the positions we hold are the correct ones. But how were these positions established? The pioneers studied the Bible with prayer and went as far as they could go. Then there was a direct intervention of the Holy Spirit to establish truth. Speaking of these study meetings, for instance, Ellen White wrote:

“We are to be established in the faith, in the light of the truth given us in our early experience. At that time one error after another pressed in upon us. ... We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. ... The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled to clearly define what is truth and what is error. ... I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me” (GW 302).

This is what I meant when I said that Ellen White has already made the selection of what is truth and what is not. What is revealed in her writings is, of course, truth. Of course she did not reveal everything, and there are new truths to be discovered in the Word of God. But what she did reveal is truth.