|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,211
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
9 registered members (TheophilusOne, dedication, daylily, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,658
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13578
06/11/05 04:54 PM
06/11/05 04:54 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom, There are many things I could comment about, but this discussion has been dragging for too long, so I will reply just to the main points. quote:
Man is saved by Christ's defeating our enemies
What does Christ’s defeating our enemies have to do with our forgiveness?
Tom: What does God being reconciled to man mean?
“Between unholy man, and God, the embodiment of holiness, there can be no companionship. The prophet Habakkuk declares that God is ‘of purer eyes than to behold evil, and can not look on iniquity.’ But Christ ‘gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity,’ and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Christ is the Sin-Bearer. He bears the iniquity of all who repent and believe, all who accept His robe of righteousness. For our sake the Innocent is pronounced guilty, while through His merits the guilty are pronounced innocent.” {ST, May 14, 1902 par. 11}
It means that God is holy and cannot tolerate the presence of sin; therefore, when man sinned he was shut out from God (debarred from God’s favor) for ever. However Christ, through the plan of salvation, imputes and imparts His righteousness to men, so that God can look to them again with favor (approbation).
quote:
As Waggoner pointed out, the word "propitiation" has to do with an appeasement of wrath.
I didn’t say you misrepresent my position; I just said that I did not think exactly in wrath when I thought of the word propitiation, although, thinking better, this meaning may really be implied.
Words associated to pagan concepts were incorporated into the Bible (for lack of a better option), with a related but at the same time different meaning than they originally had (hades, tartaros, hilasterion, etc.)
Hilasterion was the word the LXX used for mercy-seat. Thus, if the word is related at all to wrath, it is because the mercy-seat was the place where the blood was sprinkled to make atonement for the people and turn away God’s wrath at their sins. Thus the mercy-seat represents Christ’s work as Savior.
“The law of God, enshrined within the ark, was the great rule of righteousness and judgment. That law pronounced death upon the transgressor; but above the law was the mercy seat, upon which the presence of God was revealed, and from which, by virtue of the atonement, pardon was granted to the repentant sinner. Thus in the work of Christ for our redemption, symbolized by the sanctuary service, ‘mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.’ Psalm 85:10.” {PP 349.2}
“The cover of this ark . . . was called the mercy-seat, to signify that although death was the penalty for transgressing the law, mercy came through Jesus Christ to pardon the repentant, believing sinner.” {SD 66.3}
quote:
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.
But who said the main points of disagreement between Butler/Smith and Waggoner were these? We are told that among SDAs there had been controversy for two years over which law Paul meant in Galatians 3. During the session EGW said: “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.’” So, it seems clear to me that the main point of divergence was the law in Galatians. This is again confirmed by Ellen White in this passage:
“Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother B, Brother C, and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner has presented… The covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind, but I was brought where the Lord gave me an insight into this matter. You have turned from plain light because you were afraid that the law question in Galatians would have to be accepted. As to the law in Galatians, I have no burden and never have had.” --Letter 59, 1890, p. 6. (To Uriah Smith, March 8, 1890.) {9MR 329.1}
As to the points you presented, it’s not that I disagree with Waggoner; it’s that there is clearly a divergence between Waggoner and the Bible and Ellen White.
1. The covenants are promises.
If the covenants were the promises, Paul wouldn’t have made a distinction between the two:
Romans 9:4 “They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises”
Hebrews 8:6 “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
The Bible is very clear here - the covenant is not a promise, it is established upon promises.
While Waggoner says that a covenant is not "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things", Ellen White says that “a covenant is an agreement by which parties bind themselves and each other to the fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus the human agent enters into agreement with God to comply with the conditions specified in His Word.”
2. The Old Covenant was the promise of the people to make themselves righteous.
The people really promised to obey God, but as a (self-righteous) response to the covenant.
3. The Old Covenant was initiated by the people.
"Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you'" (Heb. 9:18-20).
It was initiated by God and the israelites only consented to obey its conditions:
“Bravely did the Israelites speak the words promising obedience to the Lord, after hearing His covenant read in the audience of the people. ...Then the people were set apart and sealed to God. A sacrifice was offered to the Lord. ... Thus the Israelites entered into a solemn covenant with God.” {1MR 115.1}
“[Exodus 24:4-8 quoted]. Here the people received the conditions of the covenant. They made a solemn covenant with God, typifying the covenant made between God and every believer in Jesus Christ. The conditions were plainly laid before the people. ... When they were requested to decide whether they would agree to all the conditions given, they unanimously consented to obey every obligation.” {1MR 114.2}
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.
Why it came into place:
“But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant.... But there was a still greater truth to be impressed upon their minds. Living in the midst of idolatry and corruption, they had no true conception of the holiness of God, of the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts, their utter inability, in themselves, to render obedience to God's law, and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught.”{PP 371}
5- The Covenants are not a matter of time.
The covenants were made at specific points in time, but of course the attitudes they represent can be found at any age.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13579
06/12/05 04:56 AM
06/12/05 04:56 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Webster's is a good source for definitions of words. It gives for "prevalent":
[quote]
2 : being in ascendancy : DOMINANT
3 : generally or widely accepted, practiced, or favored :[quote]
The first definition was archaic, so I left it out.
What I first think of when hearing "prevalant" is
"widespread".
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13580
06/12/05 07:26 AM
06/12/05 07:26 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
R: Tom, There are many things I could comment about, but this discussion has been dragging for too long, so I will reply just to the main points. Tom: That's fine. Old Tom:Man is saved by Christ's defeating our enemies R: What does Christ’s defeating our enemies have to do with our forgiveness? "God's forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin but reclaiming from sin." (The Faith I Live By 129) Clearly we could not be reclaimed from sin if Christ had not defeated it. Old Tom: What does God being reconciled to man mean? R: “Between unholy man, and God, the embodiment of holiness, there can be no companionship. The prophet Habakkuk declares that God is ‘of purer eyes than to behold evil, and can not look on iniquity.’ But Christ ‘gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity,’ and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Christ is the Sin-Bearer. He bears the iniquity of all who repent and believe, all who accept His robe of righteousness. For our sake the Innocent is pronounced guilty, while through His merits the guilty are pronounced innocent.” {ST, May 14, 1902 par. 11} It means that God is holy and cannot tolerate the presence of sin; therefore, when man sinned he was shut out from God (debarred from God’s favor) for ever. However Christ, through the plan of salvation, imputes and imparts His righteousness to men, so that God can look to them again with favor (approbation). Tom: To be reconciled is to repair a damaged relationship. Something happened which caused a rift in the relationship between God and man. That something was that man sinned. The relationship needed to be repaired on the part of man, not God. On God's side, God still loved man, so much so, in fact, that He sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss in order to repair the damage that sin had caused to man. There was only one side that needed to be fixed. Nothing was wrong with God's side. You wrote above: "It means that God is holy and cannot tolerate the presence of sin; therefore, when man sinned he was shut out from God (debarred from God’s favor) for ever. However Christ, through the plan of salvation, imputes and imparts His righteousness to men, so that God can look to them again with favor (approbation)." Christ is as much God as God the Father is. So Christ would have to impute and impart His righteousness to men so that He Himself could look at them with favor. So we have: 1) Man sinned. 2) Christ could not look at them with favor. 3) So He imputed/imparted His righteousness to them so He could once again look at them with favor. This seems like kind of a wierd way of looking at things, but I suppose it's acceptable. It doesn't mean much different to me than to simply say that God, whether the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit is gracious. Old Tom: As Waggoner pointed out, the word "propitiation" has to do with an appeasement of wrath. R: I didn’t say you misrepresent my position; I just said that I did not think exactly in wrath when I thought of the word propitiation, although, thinking better, this meaning may really be implied. Words associated to pagan concepts were incorporated into the Bible (for lack of a better option), with a related but at the same time different meaning than they originally had (hades, tartaros, hilasterion, etc.) Hilasterion was the word the LXX used for mercy-seat. Thus, if the word is related at all to wrath, it is because the mercy-seat was the place where the blood was sprinkled to make atonement for the people and turn away God’s wrath at their sins. Thus the mercy-seat represents Christ’s work as Savior. Tom: Once again, Christ is as much God as the Father is. So if His blood was necessary to turn away God's wrath, His blood was necessary to turn away His own wrath. It appears to me that you're backtracking from what you wrote previously. Previously you said I was incorrect in suggesting that you were saying that God's wrath was appeased by Christ's sacrifice. However, this is what you seem to be saying now. So are you saying that you disagree with my position (which is Waggoner's) which is 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. http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/aor/rom03.htm
I'm still not clear as to whether you agree with this or not. It seems to me that before you were, but now maybe you're not.
R:
“The law of God, enshrined within the ark, was the great rule of righteousness and judgment. That law pronounced death upon the transgressor; but above the law was the mercy seat, upon which the presence of God was revealed, and from which, by virtue of the atonement, pardon was granted to the repentant sinner. Thus in the work of Christ for our redemption, symbolized by the sanctuary service, ‘mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.’ Psalm 85:10.” {PP 349.2}
“The cover of this ark . . . was called the mercy-seat, to signify that although death was the penalty for transgressing the law, mercy came through Jesus Christ to pardon the repentant, believing sinner.” {SD 66.3}
Old Tom: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.
R: But who said the main points of disagreement between Butler/Smith and Waggoner were these?
T: We're talking about the Covenants. The points I laid out were points of disagreement between Waggoner's view on the Covenants and those who disagreed with him.
R: We are told that among SDAs there had been controversy for two years over which law Paul meant in Galatians 3. During the session EGW said: “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.’” So, it seems clear to me that the main point of divergence was the law in Galatians. This is again confirmed by Ellen White in this passage:
T: Actually the issue was broader than simply the Law in Galatians. God had given light to Jones and Waggoner on the subject of justificaiton by faith. Ellen White saw this, and that the issues were deeper than what others were seeing. When she was asked about the message the Jones and Waggoner were presenting, she said that justification by faith (the message Waggoner and Jones was bringing) was "the third angel's message in verity" (RH 4/1/90)). At any rate, that the Law in Galatians was a concern doesn't really enter into the question of the differences between the two positions on the Covenants, except to the point that they are inter-related. They are inter-related insofar as the larger issues of righteousness by faith are concerned.
R: “Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother B, Brother C, and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner has presented… The covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind,
T: Let's stop here a moment. Here we see that it is a waste of time to attemt to produce a position on the covenants which varies from the position Waggoner presented, and the the covenant question is clear to every candid, unprejudiced mind. I agree completely with this. This leads to the question as to what Waggoner's teaching was, and what "candid, unprejudiced" minds should find clear.
(quote continued) but I was brought where the Lord gave me an insight into this matter. You have turned from plain light because you were afraid that the law question in Galatians would have to be accepted. As to the law in Galatians, I have no burden and never have had.” --Letter 59, 1890, p. 6. (To Uriah Smith, March 8, 1890.) {9MR 329.1}
R: As to the points you presented, it’s not that I disagree with Waggoner; it’s that there is clearly a divergence between Waggoner and the Bible and Ellen White.
Tom: Well this is what I find confusing. It is my understanding that God is the source of all truth. If God gave truth to Waggoner regarding the Covenants, surely that truth must agree with the Bible. So how can there be truth in the Bible and E.G.W. and Waggoner on the same subject which disagrees? How can EGW say if Waggoner's position agrees with hers it is "truth", call it "truth", and not be in agreement with his position? How can truth on the same subject not agree?
R: 1. The covenants are promises.
If the covenants were the promises, Paul wouldn’t have made a distinction between the two:
Romans 9:4 “They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises”
Hebrews 8:6 “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
The Bible is very clear here - the covenant is not a promise, it is established upon promises.
T: The Old Covenant was established by man's promise to God. The New Covenant, or Abrahamic Covenant, or Everlasting Covenant is simply the Plan of Salvation, which encompasses all the promises of God. That the New Covenant, or Abrahamic Covenant, is a promise is easily established from Scripture:
quote:
13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:13)
This is the covenant that God made with Abraham.
quote:
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (2 Pet. 3:13)
Same promise, same covenant.
quote:
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (Gal. 3:17, 18)
To disannul the covenant would be to make the promise of none effect. "Covenant" and "promise" are interchangeble here. In verse 18 it says God made a promise to give Abraham the inheritance, but in Genesis is says God made him a covenant to give it to him.
quote:
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29)
Once again, this is referring to the Covenant God made with Abraham.
R: While Waggoner says that a covenant is not "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things", Ellen White says that “a covenant is an agreement by which parties bind themselves and each other to the fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus the human agent enters into agreement with God to comply with the conditions specified in His Word.”
T: The Scriptures are clear. The Abrahamic Covenant is referred to as a "promise" many times. Ellen White cannot be used contradict Scripture. She's talking about a definition of an English word, but to understand how Paul and Peter understood the word, we need to consider their writings.
Old Tom: 2. The Old Covenant was the promise of the people to make themselves righteous.
R: The people really promised to obey God, but as a (self-righteous) response to the covenant.
T: No, they intiated the covenant.
quote:
"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage. http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/gt/gt5.htm
This is, as EGW states, as clear as sunlight.
3. The Old Covenant was initiated by the people.
"Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you'" (Heb. 9:18-20).
It was initiated by God and the israelites only consented to obey its conditions:
“Bravely did the Israelites speak the words promising obedience to the Lord, after hearing His covenant read in the audience of the people. ...Then the people were set apart and sealed to God. A sacrifice was offered to the Lord. ... Thus the Israelites entered into a solemn covenant with God.” {1MR 115.1}
“[Exodus 24:4-8 quoted]. Here the people received the conditions of the covenant. They made a solemn covenant with God, typifying the covenant made between God and every believer in Jesus Christ. The conditions were plainly laid before the people. ... When they were requested to decide whether they would agree to all the conditions given, they unanimously consented to obey every obligation.” {1MR 114.2}
Tom: As Waggoner points about above, it was the people who initiated the Old Covenant. Just ask the quesiton, is the Old Covenant a good thing or a bad thing? It leads to bondage. (Gal. 4:24) What sense would it make for God to initiate something which would lead the people into bondage? It was His will to deliver them from bondage. This is what the Covenant God made with Abraham did. There was no need for a different Covenant. God already had a perfect one. Why would God initiate a Covenant which doesn't work in place of one which does?
R: 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.
Why it came into place:
“But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant.... But there was a still greater truth to be impressed upon their minds. Living in the midst of idolatry and corruption, they had no true conception of the holiness of God, of the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts, their utter inability, in themselves, to render obedience to God's law, and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught.”{PP 371}
T: Sure, all these things needed to be taught, and for this reason God taught them these things. But He didn't initiate a Covenant that would lead them into bondage. It took something which the people had initiated out of unbelief, and added His hand to it, making something good out of something which the people had done. God is good at this sort of thing. He resuces us out of situations we have initiated out of our unbelief as well.
R: 5- The Covenants are not a matter of time.
The covenants were made at specific points in time, but of course the attitudes they represent can be found at any age.
T: What this quote of Waggoner is referring to is brought out here:
quote:
Note the statement which the apostle makes when speaking of the two women, Hagar and Sarah: "These are the two covenants." So then the two covenants existed in every essential particular in the days of Abraham. Even so they do to-day; for the Scripture says now as well as then, "Cast out the bondwoman and her son." We see then that the two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Let no one flatter himself that he can not be under the old covenant, because the time for that is passed. The time for that is passed only in the sense that "the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries." 1Pet.4:3. http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/gt/gt5.htm
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13581
06/12/05 05:19 PM
06/12/05 05:19 PM
|
|
|
Tom, it is indeed sad to see you persist in setting your own human ideas above very plain statements of Inspiration.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13582
06/13/05 01:36 AM
06/13/05 01:36 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
John, you're being a bit vague. I suppose you're talking about the last post. I can't think of a single thing in that post that is my idea. Almost the whole post was simply restating Waggoner's ideas, which were explicitly endorsed by the Messenger of the Lord as "truth" and "clear as sunglight".
Was there something is specific you were thinking of?
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13583
06/13/05 03:36 PM
06/13/05 03:36 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
What I first think of when hearing "prevalant" is "widespread".
Now that I looked at the dictionary, I see that you are correct. The adjective does not have all the meanings of the verb.
quote:
Clearly we could not be reclaimed from sin if Christ had not defeated it.
Let me be more specific. Christus Victor says on the cross Christ was victorious over the evil powers of the world - the flesh, sin, the law and death. Now, what I mean this theory does not explain is, "By what means did Christ win the victory on the cross?" Did He have to suffer in order to save us or not? If not, why not? If so, why? And in what way did His sufferings accomplish our redemption?
quote:
Nothing was wrong with God's side.
How could God relate to man if sin is repulsive to God? This was wrong.
quote:
Christ is as much God as God the Father is. So Christ would have to impute and impart His righteousness to men so that He Himself could look at them with favor.
Exactly.
quote:
Once again, Christ is as much God as the Father is. So if His blood was necessary to turn away God's wrath, His blood was necessary to turn away His own wrath.
This is correct. God is at the same time wrath towards sin and mercy towards man. That’s what I say - God cannot forgive the sinner without at the same time punishing sin, otherwise He would cease to be God.
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. (emphasis mine)
It’s absurd to say that God is angry with men and that He cannot forgive without His wrath against men being appeased. It’s not absurd to say that God is wrought against sin.
quote:
Actually the issue was broader than simply the Law in Galatians.
No, all the other issues emerge from the law in Galatians.
Under the covenant of grace, Christ kept the law for us and thereby fulfilled the conditions upon which God gives eternal life to believers. Believing sinners, justified by Christ's imputed righteousness, will keep the law, but this obedience to the law is not the basis on which God grants eternal life. However, before 1888, what Adventists generally taught was that the Lord forgives past sins and then helps the believer keep the law as a condition of eternal life. But this is nothing but salvation through law-keeping.
Galatians 3:17, 18 says that the ten commandments came out at Mount Sinai 430 years after God promised salvation to Abraham in Christ. So whatever purpose God had in enunciating the law did not void God’s promise to Abraham. The inheritance God promised of a righteous new earth does not come about through man’s law-keeping.
When God spoke His ten commandments from Mount Sinai it was with awesome grandeur, so that they could understand the gospel. The law struck terror in the sinner’s heart, but the law could not deliver them. Who alone could deliver them from the condemnation of the law? Galatians 3:19, 20. The deliverer is the Mediator. Without a Mediator, the law is nothing but a curse, condemnation and death. But God’s law “in the hand of a Mediator” is freedom. In Jesus all of God’s ten commandments are ten promises. In Jesus God’s commandments are the perfect law of liberty.
Galatians 3:21. The law isn’t contrary God’s promises. It is in God’s promises. But the law outside of God’s promise in Christ cannot give life. It can only curse sinners and consign them to death.
Galatians 3:22, 23. the law spoken of here is not the ceremonial law. It is the ten-commandment law. And to be “under the law” is to be subject to its penalties. But when the faith of Jesus is revealed to us and embraced then we are no longer “shut up” “under the law.” We are no longer under the condemnation of the law and subject to eternal death.
Now the apostle Paul explains the function of the law in terms of a correctional officer in the prison system. Galatians 3:24, 25. The law of God is like a correctional officer who locks up those under it in sin. The law cannot release its prisoner. There is no hope under the law. But when the sinner hears about the faith of Jesus and the Holy Spirit convinces him of his own sin and the need for Christ’s righteousness, he is justified by faith.
Galatians 3:24, 25 played a key role in the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference Because the “schoolmaster” was perceived by Evangelical opponents as being the ten commandments being done away with at the cross, our Adventist leaders said it was the ceremonial law. So the leaders assumed with the evangelicals that this was a dispensational text and some law was done away with. But the Adventists couldn’t agree that the law of God was abolished.
When E. J. Waggoner agreed with the evangelicals that the schoolmaster law was the ten commandments, the leadership took strong exception. However, Waggoner did not agree with the evangelicals that the text was speaking dispensationally that the law was abolished with the coming of faith at the first advent of Christ. Waggoner said that the text was describing the experience of every sinner who is driven by the law to Christ. So it was not a dispensational time-oriented text, but an experience-oriented text.
Little else could be said about the covenants, since this subject was already extensively discussed in the past.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13584
06/13/05 05:11 PM
06/13/05 05:11 PM
|
|
|
Tom, I'm thinking of many things. The way you use E.J. Waggoner as if he outranks an inspired prophet of God. (EGW and EJW did conflict on a good number of points of doctrine, you know.) The unscriptural ideas that you & Phil & John B. have been pushing on the destruction of the wicked. The way you insist that the Old Covenant was not instituted by God. On and on. Merely human ideas that have no basis in Inspiration, in other words; or that are based upon the twisting of inspired statements.
That's what I meant.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13585
06/14/05 02:23 AM
06/14/05 02:23 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
John: Tom, I'm thinking of many things. The way you use E.J. Waggoner as if he outranks an inspired prophet of God. Tom: Truth is truth. The source is irrelevant. If EGW says God gave truth to Waggoner, then if you believe EGW then Waggoner had truth for 2 reasons: because it's truth, and because EGW said so. What more do you need? John: (EGW and EJW did conflict on a good number of points of doctrine, you know.) Tom: During the time that EGW was endorcing Waggoner (over 1,000 endorsements spanning about ten years), I'm only aware of one difference, which was a minor discreprancy which Waggoner quickly corrected. In the Jan 1889 Signs of the Times articles which recapped the 1888 lectures Waggoner gave, and were later formed into the book "Christ And His Righteousness" (originally names "Christ Our Righteousness" but renamed because A. G. Daniels wrote another book by the same name) Waggoner wrote the Christ could not sin because he had perfect faith. EGW corrected this to say that it was possible for Christ to sin, and Waggoner correct that. Apart from this one thing, I'm not aware of any discrepranc between the two. This is the only item I can thing of that she corrected him on, and the fact that she corrected him on this issue shows that she was willing to correct him when necessary, and that if there were largers issues, they would have been corrected. Actually the right way of looking at things is that *God* would have corrected Waggoner, if he was in error, because God is the One who gave light to him, and the One who was stating, throught EGW, that Waggoner had light. It wouldn't be very cricket of God to proclaim He was giving us light if the light were in error, would it? God, being aware of His responsbility to correct any errors in messages He was deeming as light, took care to do so. John: The unscriptural ideas that you & Phil & John B. have been pushing on the destruction of the wicked. Tom: I have provided much Scripture to back my views. For example, to the idea that God's wrath is His giving people up to the result of their choice, we have Deut 31:17, 18; Jer. 33:5; 2 Chron 29: 6, 8; 2 Kings 17:17-20; Ps. 27:9; Ps. 89:46; Ps. 143:7; Hosea 9:12; Lam. 2:5-7; Rom. 1:18-26. All of these Scriptures illustrate this view. To show that the fire, which is God's glory, gives life to the righteous while slaying the wicked (EGW says this in DA 108) we have: quote:
Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
15 He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly (Isa. 33:14, 15)
Foremost we have Jesus Christ Himself, who is the very image of God, and came for the express purpose of making God's character known. When his disciples suggested that fire be rained down from heaven to destroy those who were opposing Him, He said, "You know not of what spirit you are." There is nothing in the life of Christ which suggests that Christ was anything but tolerant and gracious to those who disagreed with Him. When He was spurned, He simply left.
The basic principle involved in the destruction of the wicked is that sin is deadly. There is a lot of Scriptural support for that: "Sin pays its wages: death." "The soul that sins, it shall die." "Sin, when it is finished, brings for death." "All they that hate Me love death." "The sting of death is sin." All these Scriptures bring out this point.
John: The way you insist that the Old Covenant was not instituted by God. On and on. Merely human ideas that have no basis in Inspiration, in other words; or that are based upon the twisting of inspired statements.
That's what I meant.
Tom: Here's what EGW wrote:
quote:
Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds. (Letter 30, 1890)
quote:
Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother B, Brother C, and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner has presented. (MR Vol. 9, p. 328)
This is inspired, isn't it? I'd say my assertion that Waggoner's views are "truth" and "clear" and "convincing" have a basis in inspiration, wouldn't you? I'd also say my assertion that if you, or anybody else, tries to produce a position on the covenant that varies from Waggoner's, you are spending your investigative powers for naught has a basis in inspiration too, wouldn't you?
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13586
06/14/05 03:15 AM
06/14/05 03:15 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom:Clearly we could not be reclaimed from sin if Christ had not defeated it. R: Let me be more specific. Christus Victor says on the cross Christ was victorious over the evil powers of the world - the flesh, sin, the law and death. Now, what I mean this theory does not explain is, "By what means did Christ win the victory on the cross?" Did He have to suffer in order to save us or not? If not, why not? If so, why? And in what way did His sufferings accomplish our redemption? T: These are excellent questions. By what means is an easy question to answer. The others are more involved. The means is by Christ's life, death and resurrection. Did He have to suffer in order to save us? He was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. He could not have experienced the death of the cross without suffering, so yes, His suffering was necessary. To ask if His suffering were necessary are tantamount to asking if His death was necessary. Not only was His death necessary, but so was His life and resurrection. This is where Christus Victor differs from Anselm, who only emphasizes Christ's death. Anselm sees Christ's death as a necessary payment in order for God's justice to be satisfied. Christus Victor sees Christ's life, death and resurrection as the means by which He obtained victory over the powers of evil: sin, death and the devil. quote:
As He submitted to the evil of the violent powers rather than meet it on its own terms, He made visible the fact that the rule of God does not depend on violence. The God revealed by Jesus, and the rule of God revealed by Jesus, do not respond to violence with violence (The Nonviolent Atonement, J. Denny Weaver, p. 74)
Does God accomplish the atonement by veans of violence? This is a quesiton gravid with theological and philosophical implications.
quote:
Jesus' death was the rejection of the rule of God by forces opposed to that rule.... Far from being an event organized for a divine requirement, His death reveals the nature of the forces of evil that opposed the rule of God. It poses a contrast between the attempt to coerce by violence under the rule of evil and the nonviolence of the rule of God as revealed and made visible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (Ibid. 44)
Ok, these quotes discuss what Jesus' death was not, which was not a design on God's part to solve our problems by violent means. But they don't address your question from the positive side. The following quote answers your question from the positive side:
quote:
Salvation is to begin to be free from those evil forces, and to be transformed by the reign of God and to take on a life shaped -- marked -- by the story of Jesus, whose mission was to make visible the reign of God in our history. (Ibid 44)
What a wonderful quote! And from a heathen yet (i.e. non-Adventist). One can't help but notice how similar it is to the following from the Spirit of Prophesy:
quote:
The very attributes that belonged to the character of Satan, the evil one represented as belonging to the character of God. Jesus came to teach men of the Father, to correctly represent him before the fallen children of earth. Angels could not fully portray the character of God, but Christ, who was a living impersonation of God, could not fail to accomplish the work. The only way in which he could set and keep men right was to make himself visible and familiar to their eyes....
The Father was revealed in Christ as altogether a different being from that which Satan had represented him to be. Said Christ, "Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." The love of Jesus, expressed for the fallen race in his life of self-denial and sufferings, is the manifestation of the Father's love for a sinful, fallen world....
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son!...
Those who would behold this glory would be drawn to love Jesus and to love the Father whom he represented. Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. (ST 1/20/90)
The purpose of everything Christ did, whether in His life, death, or resurrection, was to reveal the character of God (or what the other author calls the "reign of God" or the "rule of God", or what Paul calls the "righteousness of God"). Through the revelation of God, He sets men right.
This is already long, so I'll answer the rest on another post.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13587
06/14/05 03:35 AM
06/14/05 03:35 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom:Nothing was wrong with God's side.
R: How could God relate to man if sin is repulsive to God? This was wrong.
T: God relates to man by healing him of sin.
Old Tom: Christ is as much God as God the Father is. So Christ would have to impute and impart His righteousness to men so that He Himself could look at them with favor.
R: Exactly.
Old Tom: Once again, Christ is as much God as the Father is. So if His blood was necessary to turn away God's wrath, His blood was necessary to turn away His own wrath.
R: This is correct. God is at the same time wrath towards sin and mercy towards man. That’s what I say - God cannot forgive the sinner without at the same time punishing sin, otherwise He would cease to be God.
T: Well Christ did it, and He was God. He forgave sinners without punishing them, or their sin. The punishment of sin is death, the second death, and Christ killed no one while on earth, yet He forgave sins.
Old Tom: 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. (emphasis mine)
R: It’s absurd to say that God is angry with men and that He cannot forgive without His wrath against men being appeased. It’s not absurd to say that God is wrought against sin.
T: By "wrought" I assume you mean "wroth." Of course God is wroth against sin. It kills His children, whom He loves.
You haven't answered my question, although I've asked it several times, at least thrice. That is, do you agree with me that God is not propitiated by Christ's sacrifice as spoken by Paul in Romans 3? At first you took issue with my representing your position as saying that God's wrath is propitiated by Christ's sacrifice, but now you seem to arguing in favor of it. So you have me confused.
Old Tom:Actually the issue was broader than simply the Law in Galatians.
R: No, all the other issues emerge from the law in Galatians.
T: No, I think Ellen G. White was correct. The issues was not simply the law in Galations, but righteousness by faith.
R: Under the covenant of grace, Christ kept the law for us and thereby fulfilled the conditions upon which God gives eternal life to believers. Believing sinners, justified by Christ's imputed righteousness, will keep the law, but this obedience to the law is not the basis on which God grants eternal life. However, before 1888, what Adventists generally taught was that the Lord forgives past sins and then helps the believer keep the law as a condition of eternal life. But this is nothing but salvation through law-keeping.
T: So you're saying that before 1888 Adventists preached a false Gospel? Under Paul's admonition, they should be accursed? Where is there any teaching in SDAism before 1888 that men are saved by any means other than by faith in Christ? I've often seen non-Adventist make this assertion against SDA's, but I've never seen proof.
R: Galatians 3:17, 18 says that the ten commandments came out at Mount Sinai 430 years after God promised salvation to Abraham in Christ. So whatever purpose God had in enunciating the law did not void God’s promise to Abraham. The inheritance God promised of a righteous new earth does not come about through man’s law-keeping.
When God spoke His ten commandments from Mount Sinai it was with awesome grandeur, so that they could understand the gospel. The law struck terror in the sinner’s heart, but the law could not deliver them. Who alone could deliver them from the condemnation of the law? Galatians 3:19, 20. The deliverer is the Mediator. Without a Mediator, the law is nothing but a curse, condemnation and death. But God’s law “in the hand of a Mediator” is freedom. In Jesus all of God’s ten commandments are ten promises. In Jesus God’s commandments are the perfect law of liberty.
Galatians 3:21. The law isn’t contrary God’s promises. It is in God’s promises. But the law outside of God’s promise in Christ cannot give life. It can only curse sinners and consign them to death.
Galatians 3:22, 23. the law spoken of here is not the ceremonial law. It is the ten-commandment law. And to be “under the law” is to be subject to its penalties. But when the faith of Jesus is revealed to us and embraced then we are no longer “shut up” “under the law.” We are no longer under the condemnation of the law and subject to eternal death.
Now the apostle Paul explains the function of the law in terms of a correctional officer in the prison system. Galatians 3:24, 25. The law of God is like a correctional officer who locks up those under it in sin. The law cannot release its prisoner. There is no hope under the law. But when the sinner hears about the faith of Jesus and the Holy Spirit convinces him of his own sin and the need for Christ’s righteousness, he is justified by faith.
Galatians 3:24, 25 played a key role in the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference Because the “schoolmaster” was perceived by Evangelical opponents as being the ten commandments being done away with at the cross, our Adventist leaders said it was the ceremonial law. So the leaders assumed with the evangelicals that this was a dispensational text and some law was done away with. But the Adventists couldn’t agree that the law of God was abolished.
When E. J. Waggoner agreed with the evangelicals that the schoolmaster law was the ten commandments, the leadership took strong exception. However, Waggoner did not agree with the evangelicals that the text was speaking dispensationally that the law was abolished with the coming of faith at the first advent of Christ. Waggoner said that the text was describing the experience of every sinner who is driven by the law to Christ. So it was not a dispensational time-oriented text, but an experience-oriented text.
Little else could be said about the covenants, since this subject was already extensively discussed in the past.
T: You brought up the subject. You gave it as an example of EGW's disagreeing with Waggoner, which I said was rediculous, because EGW argued in the strongest terms that she agreed with Waggoner and that Waggoner's position was "truth" "clear" and "convincing".
By the way, your summary of Galatians 3 was pretty good. Keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
