Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,224
Members1,326
|
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
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: Johann]
#147012
11/16/12 01:20 AM
11/16/12 01:20 AM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
I have also received a blessing by reading your book, Mike. I am happy it was a blessing. Thank you, Jesus!
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: APL]
#147013
11/16/12 01:36 AM
11/16/12 01:36 AM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Is the atonement LEGAL? NO. The law can not be changed. The law can NOT release the sinner from the consequences of his transgression. There is not a legal solution to the problem. A real solution must be found. . . The only solution is that man must be born again. The stain of sin must be removed. This is healing, not legal. A legal declaration makes no change in man. A restoration of the human character by the divine is the only solution. Just God is just and justifier. Justification is setting right. This is not a legal solution, it is a real solution. The law demands death for sin. God cannot disregard the requirements of law and justice. Jesus paid our sin debt of death. His life and death satisfies law and justice. What makes this part of salvation legal is all the legalese - 1) law, 2) justice, 3) crime, 4) evidence, 5) eye witnesses, 6) charges, 7) accusations, 8)confession, 9) conviction, 10) guilt, 11) condemnation, 12) judgment, 13) sentencing, 14) mediation, 15) substitution, 16) death, 17) grace, 18) mercy, 19) pardon, 20) restoration. It's difficult to conclude this part of salvation is not a legal matter.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: APL]
#147015
11/16/12 02:06 AM
11/16/12 02:06 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,640
California, USA
|
|
The regeneration can only be done by Christ. It took His death on the cross to achieve this. Did Enoch need Christ's death on the cross in order to be regenerated?
By God's grace, Arnold
1 John 5:11-13 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: Mountain Man]
#147016
11/16/12 02:28 AM
11/16/12 02:28 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
Is the atonement LEGAL? NO. The law can not be changed. The law can NOT release the sinner from the consequences of his transgression. There is not a legal solution to the problem. A real solution must be found. . . The only solution is that man must be born again. The stain of sin must be removed. This is healing, not legal. A legal declaration makes no change in man. A restoration of the human character by the divine is the only solution. Just God is just and justifier. Justification is setting right. This is not a legal solution, it is a real solution. The law demands death for sin. God cannot disregard the requirements of law and justice. Jesus paid our sin debt of death. His life and death satisfies law and justice. What makes this part of salvation legal is all the legalese - 1) law, 2) justice, 3) crime, 4) evidence, 5) eye witnesses, 6) charges, 7) accusations, 8)confession, 9) conviction, 10) guilt, 11) condemnation, 12) judgment, 13) sentencing, 14) mediation, 15) substitution, 16) death, 17) grace, 18) mercy, 19) pardon, 20) restoration. It's difficult to conclude this part of salvation is not a legal matter. Is God's Law - Proscriptive, Prescriptive, or Descriptive? Take #1 - LAW. The laws of Nature are God's Laws, are they not? Is Gravity legal? Can you violate gravity? IF you fall off a high cliff, is the punishment that you sure will sustain, intrinsic or imposed? Who created God's Law? If the Law demands the death of the sinner, and it does, is the penalty intrinsic or imposed? Does God have to step in when the law is broken, and execute judgment?
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: asygo]
#147017
11/16/12 04:38 AM
11/16/12 04:38 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
The regeneration can only be done by Christ. It took His death on the cross to achieve this. Did Enoch need Christ's death on the cross in order to be regenerated? I'm not sure what you are getting at with this particular question, but it brings up a side question that is just as relevant to this thread, and that is, "Did Enoch need Christ's death on the cross in order to be saved?" The answer to that is "Yes." Here is a quote from the Desire of Ages that says Jesus' death was necessary for every human being, which would certainly have included Enoch, Moses, and Elijah given the context of this quote. But before the crown must come the cross. Not the inauguration of Christ as king, but the decease to be accomplished at Jerusalem, is the subject of their conference with Jesus. Bearing the weakness of humanity, and burdened with its sorrow and sin, Jesus walked alone in the midst of men. As the darkness of the coming trial pressed upon Him, He was in loneliness of spirit, in a world that knew Him not. Even His loved disciples, absorbed in their own doubt and sorrow and ambitious hopes, had not comprehended the mystery of His mission. He had dwelt amid the love and fellowship of heaven; but in the world that He had created, He was in solitude. Now heaven had sent its messengers to Jesus; not angels, but men who had endured suffering and sorrow, and who could sympathize with the Saviour in the trial of His earthly life. Moses and Elijah had been colaborers with Christ. They had shared His longing for the salvation of men. Moses had pleaded for Israel: "Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written." Exodus 32:32. Elijah had known loneliness of spirit, as for three years and a half of famine he had borne the burden of the nation's hatred and its woe. Alone he had stood for God upon Mount Carmel. Alone he had fled to the desert in anguish and despair. These men, chosen above every angel around the throne, had come to commune with Jesus concerning the scenes of His suffering, and to comfort Him with the assurance of the sympathy of heaven. The hope of the world, the salvation of every human being, was the burden of their interview. {DA 422.2} Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#147019
11/16/12 07:38 AM
11/16/12 07:38 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
Yes GC. Good quote. Also in Prophets and Kings we read: This hope of redemption through the advent of the Son of God as Saviour and King, has never become extinct in the hearts of men. From the beginning there have been some whose faith has reached out beyond the shadows of the present to the realities of the future. Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- through these and other worthies the Lord has preserved the precious revealings of His will. And it was thus that to the children of Israel, the chosen people through whom was to be given to the world the promised Messiah, God imparted a knowledge of the requirements of His law, and of the salvation to be accomplished through the atoning sacrifice of His beloved Son. {PK 682.2} Enoch knew the plan of salvation. He looked forward to the coming Messiah and beyond to the second coming.
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: APL]
#147020
11/16/12 08:05 AM
11/16/12 08:05 AM
|
Banned SDA Active Member 2015
3500+ Member
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,613
USA
|
|
Praise God Mike, You have the Holy Spirit teaching you.
Search me oh God and know my heart, test me and know my anxious thoughts, see if there is any offensive way in me and lead me to the way everlasting. Amen
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: jamesonofthunder]
#147023
11/16/12 09:33 AM
11/16/12 09:33 AM
|
Banned SDA Active Member 2015
3500+ Member
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,613
USA
|
|
He who does not yield to the claims of the law of God, sets himself above God, breaks away from God’s rule of right, and becomes disloyal, as did the great deceiver in the beginning. Would that some who claim to be commandment keepers could see how their cases stand in the register above. Oh, that all who are falling short of the principles of righteousness might realize that they do not meet the broad, far-reaching claims of the law of God upon them! Repentance for sin is the first step in conversion. Repentance is an intense hatred of sin in all its forms. Phariseeism permits of self-complacency, and those who are self-righteous, appear to have a form of piety, but at heart they are corrupt. They may talk of their hope of heaven, when, in fact, they have not taken the first step toward heaven. {ST August 13, 1894, par. 5} We are not under a system of mere requirements, mere justice, and unsympathizing rigor. The penalty of transgressing the law has fallen upon our Substitute and Surety, and for a time has been suspended, so that the guilty do not feel its weight; but the object of this suspension is not to teach us that its claims are over, its exactions set aside, but to attract us to holiness, to obedience. Nothing is changed except the manner of bringing men to obey the law. Obey its claims we must. The first step toward obedience is repentance. We are to see the excellence of its requirements by beholding the wrong of disobedience. {ST August 13, 1894, par. 6}
Search me oh God and know my heart, test me and know my anxious thoughts, see if there is any offensive way in me and lead me to the way everlasting. Amen
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: APL]
#147026
11/16/12 03:15 PM
11/16/12 03:15 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
M: The law demands death for sin. God cannot disregard the requirements of law and justice. Jesus paid our sin debt of death. His life and death satisfies law and justice. What makes this part of salvation legal is all the legalese - 1) law, 2) justice, 3) crime, 4) evidence, 5) eye witnesses, 6) charges, 7) accusations, 8)confession, 9) conviction, 10) guilt, 11) condemnation, 12) judgment, 13) sentencing, 14) mediation, 15) substitution, 16) death, 17) grace, 18) mercy, 19) pardon, 20) restoration. It's difficult to conclude this part of salvation is not a legal matter.
A: Is God's Law - Proscriptive, Prescriptive, or Descriptive? Take #1 - LAW. The laws of Nature are God's Laws, are they not? Is Gravity legal? Can you violate gravity? IF you fall off a high cliff, is the punishment that you sure will sustain, intrinsic or imposed? Who created God's Law? If the Law demands the death of the sinner, and it does, is the penalty intrinsic or imposed? Does God have to step in when the law is broken, and execute judgment? In this lifetime the penalty for transgressing the Law of God (10Cs) is suspended. Probation is blood bought. The penalty for sinning is instant, immediate second death visited upon the sinner - not a long, lingering first death. The cause and effect consequences we suffer in this lifetime is not the penalty for sinning. She wrote, "death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor" was "transferred" to the "Son of God." Jesus paid our sin debt of death; thus, He earned the legal right to ransom, redeem, pardon, restore, and save penitent sinners. She wrote: Jesus was earning the right to become the advocate of men in the Father's presence. {DA 744.3}
Christ bore all this suffering in order to obtain the right to confer eternal righteousness upon as many as would believe on Him. {TDG 216.4}
Jesus Christ offered his life as a ransom for the lost, as the price by which he might purchase the right to re-create the sinner, and form again the image of God in the soul. {ST, December 12, 1895 par. 9}
He is invested with the right to give immortality. {DA 786.4}
Death entered the world because of transgression. But Christ gave His life that man should have another trial. He did not die on the cross to abolish the law of God, but to secure for man a second probation. He did not die to make sin an immortal attribute; He died to secure the right to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. {FLB 179.5}
What right had Christ to take the captives out of the enemy's hands?--The right of having made a sacrifice that satisfies the principles of justice by which the kingdom of heaven is governed. He came to this earth as the Redeemer of the lost race, to conquer the wily foe, and, by His steadfast allegiance to right, to save all who accept Him as their Saviour. On the cross of Calvary He paid the redemption price of the race. And thus He gained the right to take the captives from the grasp of the great deceiver, who, by a lie, framed against the government of God, caused the fall of man, and thus forfeited all claim to be called a loyal subject of God's glorious everlasting kingdom. {1SM 309.4}
On the cross of Calvary He paid the redemption price of the race. And thus He gained the right to rescue the captives from the grasp of the great deceiver, who by a lie framed against the government of God, caused the fall of man, and who thus forfeited all claim to be called a loyal subject of God's kingdom. {7ABC 468.5}
Satan refused to let his captives go. He held them as his subjects because of their belief of his lie. He had thus become their jailor. But he had no right to demand that a price be paid for them; because he had not obtained possession of them by lawful conquest, but under false pretense. {7ABC 468.6}
God, being the creditor, had a right to make any provision for the redemption of human beings. Justice demanded that a certain price be paid. The Son of God was the only One who could pay this price. He volunteered to come to this earth and pass over the ground where Adam fell. He came as the redeemer of the lost race, to conquer the wily foe, and by His steadfast allegiance to right, to save all who should accept Him as their Saviour. {7ABC 468.7}
After the fall, it had been impossible for man with his sinful nature to render obedience to the law of God, had not Christ, by the offer of his own life, purchased the right to lift up the race where they could once more work in harmony with its requirements. {RH, September 27, 1881 par. 11} Why did Jesus have to earn the right to save sinners and to destroy sinners? Law and justice demands it!
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#147029
11/16/12 06:59 PM
11/16/12 06:59 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,640
California, USA
|
|
The regeneration can only be done by Christ. It took His death on the cross to achieve this. Did Enoch need Christ's death on the cross in order to be regenerated? I'm not sure what you are getting at with this particular question, but it brings up a side question that is just as relevant to this thread, and that is, "Did Enoch need Christ's death on the cross in order to be saved?" The answer to that is "Yes." I agree with your short and simple answer. I have brought it up several times because it is a data point that will serve as an anchor in the tension between penal vs healing vs moral influence. If one does not have a firm position on this question, he will be tossed about by many winds of doctrine. If the answer is No, then we must conclude that Christ's death was unnecessary, the death of the Testator superfluous. It would go against a mountain of inspired evidence. If the answer is Yes, as you and I believe, then we must conclude that moral reformation, as Enoch experienced, is not sufficient. Aside from healing us, God needed to accomplish something else. This would destroy both the moral influence and the healing-only models. Note that APL has said many things, and is proficient at expressing his views. But he cannot give a simple answer to this simple question. Despite all the things he said, what he hasn't said is the most enlightening regarding his and Maxwell's teachings. There is much precious truth in it, but there is a fundamental, fatal flaw in the theory. I was hoping to help APL see it, but it is becoming clear that he sees it, but refuses to accept it.
By God's grace, Arnold
1 John 5:11-13 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|