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: Mountain Man]
#147030
11/16/12 07:25 PM
11/16/12 07:25 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
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} Sin changed man's NATURE, making it impossible to obey the law. Was man not legally able to keep the law? Or was there something else going on? Did Christ achieve a legal pardon for man that somehow now man able to keep the law which by his nature he no long could? What legal act, can change man's nature? There is not. Man's nature needed healing, restoration, salvation. A legal pronunciation can do this. If you go to a doctor with a life threatening disease, do you want to be legally forgiven, or healed? 1 John 1:9 is talking about the latter. No one has commented on my connection of Isaiah 53 and Titus 3 for a Biblical definition of Grace. This Biblical definition states, that by the knowledge that Christ gained in His experience, He is able to justify (set right) many. It is not a legal knowledge, though He has the legal right as creator of all, but knowledge of how to solve the sin problem which is in our very nature. But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him. {3SG 64.1} Was this sin that EGW talking about a legal violation of the law? MM, you also equated God's Law with the 10C. Where in the Bible does it limit the transgression of the law to the 10C? Are the 10C, proscriptive, prescriptive, or descriptive?
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]
#147032
11/16/12 08:52 PM
11/16/12 08:52 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,640
California, USA
|
|
The "healing-only" logic: Man's moral nature needs to be healed. A legal solution does not heal man's moral nature. Therefore, man does not need a legal solution.
Using the same logic: Man's moral nature needs to be healed. Water does not heal man's moral nature. Therefore, man does not need water.
Both syllogisms are equally sound.
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: APL]
#147033
11/16/12 08:55 PM
11/16/12 08:55 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,640
California, USA
|
|
No one has commented on my connection of Isaiah 53 and Titus 3 for a Biblical definition of Grace. This Biblical definition states, that by the knowledge that Christ gained in His experience, He is able to justify (set right) many. If this was true, then He could not have justified anyone in the Old Testament, including Enoch, Moses, and Elijah. That would be problematic.
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: asygo]
#147035
11/16/12 10:03 PM
11/16/12 10:03 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
No one has commented on my connection of Isaiah 53 and Titus 3 for a Biblical definition of Grace. This Biblical definition states, that by the knowledge that Christ gained in His experience, He is able to justify (set right) many. If this was true, then He could not have justified anyone in the Old Testament, including Enoch, Moses, and Elijah. That would be problematic. Only if you think God is bound by time.
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]
#147036
11/16/12 10:09 PM
11/16/12 10:09 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
The "healing-only" logic: Man's moral nature needs to be healed. A legal solution does not heal man's moral nature. Therefore, man does not need a legal solution.
Using the same logic: Man's moral nature needs to be healed. Water does not heal man's moral nature. Therefore, man does not need water.
Both syllogisms are equally sound. You have added a limitation to what I've said, "moral nature". Did I say "moral nature"? Nope. You are injecting a qualifier there that I did not put in there. Why? Is sin just a moral problem? Or is sin much greater? I don't want to put words into your mouth, but is it your opinion that since all nature is affected by sin, then dogs get cancer because of their "moral nature"?
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]
#147037
11/16/12 10:38 PM
11/16/12 10:38 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
MM, you also equated God's Law with the 10C. Where in the Bible does it limit the transgression of the law to the 10C? Are the 10C, proscriptive, prescriptive, or descriptive? The 10Cs is all encompassing. We cannot commit a sin that does not violate the 10Cs.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: Mountain Man]
#147038
11/16/12 10:56 PM
11/16/12 10:56 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
APL, in this lifetime the penalty for transgressing the Law of God (10Cs) is suspended. 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 and this planet suffer in this lifetime is not the penalty for sinning. Ellen White 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! Again, the cause and consequence effect of sinning we and this planet suffer now is not the actual penalty for sin. There is no natural relation between telling a white lie and burning to death in the lake of fire (second death). The sins of sinners will not cause natural law to rain down fire and consume them in a lake of fire. The laws of nature are not "self acting". She wrote: Many teach that matter possesses vital power. They hold that certain properties are imparted to matter, and it is then left to act through its own inherent power; and that the operations of nature are carried on in harmony with fixed laws, that God himself cannot interfere with. This is false science, and is sustained by nothing in the word of God. Nature is not self-acting; she is the servant of her Creator. God does not annul his laws nor work contrary to them; but he is continually using them as his instruments. Nature testifies of an intelligence, a presence, an active agency, that works in, and through, and above her laws. There is in nature the continual working of the Father and the Son. Said Christ, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." {HL 290.1}
God is constantly employed in upholding and using as His servants the things that He has made. He works through the laws of nature, using them as His instruments. They are not self-acting. Nature in her work testifies of the intelligent presence and active agency of a Being who moves in all things according to His will. {MH 416.1}
It is not by inherent power that year by year the earth yields its bounties and continues its march around the sun. The hand of the Infinite One is perpetually at work guiding this planet. It is God's power continually exercised that keeps the earth in position in its rotation. It is God who causes the sun to rise in the heavens. He opens the windows of heaven and gives rain. {MH 416.2} Nothing in nature is self acting. Everything obeys God. He uses the forces of nature to accomplish His purposes. In the end, He will employ them to punish and destroy sinners according to their words and works. Nature is incapable of doing it by herself. She is merely the means.
|
|
|
Re: Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.
[Re: Mountain Man]
#147042
11/16/12 11:58 PM
11/16/12 11:58 PM
|
Banned SDA Active Member 2015
3500+ Member
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,613
USA
|
|
The penalty for transgressing the Law of God is suspended until the second resurrection except for those who repent and receive the cleansing in this life.
True repentance is a hatred of every kind of sin, but that only comes through seeing what our individual sins caused the Son of God. Through empathy we vicariously feel the pain we caused our Lord and this causes us to hate sin.
If we repent, there is still a fire to go through. It is not an easy thing to drink the cup, baptized in the blood of Gethsemane.
"But the Saviour answered, “Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” They recalled His mysterious words pointing to trial and suffering, yet answered confidently, “We are able.” They would count it highest honor to prove their loyalty by sharing all that was to befall their Lord. {AA 542.1} “Ye shall drink indeed of My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with,” Christ declared—before Him a cross instead of a throne, two malefactors His companions at His right hand and at His left. James and John were to be sharers with their Master in suffering—the one, destined to swift-coming death by the sword; the other, longest of all the disciples to follow his Master in labor and reproach and persecution. “But to sit on My right hand, and on My left,” He continued, “is not Mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of My Father.” Matthew 20:21-23. {AA 542.2}
The ones who receive the blessing of being on the right and left hand of Jesus in His kingdom are the 144,000, who like Christ stand before God without an intercessor after probation closes and the plagues are falling. They are not bearing sins like Jesus, they are bearing His reproach after meeting with Him at the altar outside the camp. They are the ones from our faith who have truly received the message for the end and are prepared for the later rain, they are baptized in the Holy Spirit and are strengthened to endure to the end.
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: Mountain Man]
#147044
11/17/12 12:24 AM
11/17/12 12:24 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
MM, you also equated God's Law with the 10C. Where in the Bible does it limit the transgression of the law to the 10C? Are the 10C, proscriptive, prescriptive, or descriptive? The 10Cs is all encompassing. We cannot commit a sin that does not violate the 10Cs. As Christ has shown, the 10C are more that just outward behavior. And Nicodemus and Paul have described. The inner man must be changed. You don't want to bite on the question of what the 10C, proscriptive, prescriptive or descriptive. I will give my answer. They are descriptive. They describe how a righteous person will behave. A righteous person will not lie, will not steal, will not covet, will not murder. Being descriptive, the consequences for breaking these laws are intrinsic. No outward force is required to punish the law breaker. Romans 1 describes this.
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]
#147048
11/17/12 12:28 AM
11/17/12 12:28 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
The ultimate penalty of transgression is temporarily suspended. But there is still penalty of transgression and is experienced today. All death (1st) and sickness is the ultimate result of transgression. The sins of the father are visited until the children, to the 3rd and 4th generation. Is this a legal visitation? Or as a natural consequence of transgression? It is a natural consequence. It is transferred by heritage and social cultivation.
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|