In the last several years, an increasing number of SDA’s have begun to teach that the sacrifice of Christ was not a substitution for the sinner’s death - that a broader and more enlightened view is available in Scripture. In order to introduce this topic I am going to attempt to put two statements in writing that summarize the traditional view and the new view. I may not give the new view the emphasis or completeness that those who advocate it would like. This is not intentional. The best advocate of an idea is someone who believes it. So my apologies in advance, but I‘ll do my best, and those who hold the new view will have the first opportunity to round out what I write.

Old SDA view:

The death of Jesus was necessary to satisfy the demands of the broken law of God. Christ bore our sins, He was our substitute for what the law demanded. "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." Romans 3:24 and 25 "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Psalm 32:1

New view of some SDA’s

Like all SDA’s those who hold this view believe the death of Christ is what redeems us. His blood is important. But Christ did not suffer for our guilt. Instead, he suffered the consequences of what our guilt would eventually cost us if we do not repent and turn to the light. Rather than being our substitute, rather than paying our debt, he is our example, he enlightens. He did not pay the penalty for our sin. No one can do that. Instead, he lived a perfect life for us, setting us an example.

Some of the points raised in favour of the new view are:
1) Just prior to His death Jesus said that His work was finished. In contrast the old view holds that the main mission of Christ was to die a substitute for the sins of the world. If that was true, why would Christ say his work was finished before he died?

2) The old view makes God out to be vengeful. Sister White and scripture say that God and the Son have always been one. If God kills His own Son in His wrath against sin, God is taking vengeance, and the unity of the Father and Son is destroyed.

3) The old view defies logic. If someone today is guilty of a crime, what judge will be willing to allow someone else to take the punishment? The purpose of the punishment is to deal with the offender.

4) The old view is autocratic. God looks like a dictator by killing an innocent person for a guilty person.

5) The bible phrases like ‘died for our sins’, and ‘bore our sin’ and others need to be understood differently. They mean that Jesus as he lived and suffered here bore the consequences of sin, the malevolence that springs from the twisted nature of humanity as the result of sin. This is a crucial point and difference between the old and new view because in the new view, this is what God is trying to fix, our fallen, self-centered natures. Christ was not required to bear the guilt of our individual sins. Instead, he bore the suffering, the malignity, that is the result of fallen human nature. Our fallen natures are the thing God is concerned with, not the guilt or sin.

There are likely several more points, nuances, arguments etc. that I’ve missed. I’ve had a hard time wrapping my mind around these ideas, and I don’t think I have succeeded but I hope I’ve said enough to introduce the topic. Danilo, or someone who holds the new views, please take it from here and round out what I’ve posted above with your views.

=======

Email Notification activated - Daryl

[ April 04, 2003, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Daryl Fawcett ]

The Signs of the Times----DT- 05-02-92
The Fullness of Christ's Grace

"The grace of Jesus Christ alone can change the heart of stone to a heart of flesh, and make it alive unto God. Men may perform great deeds in the eyes of the world; their achievements may be many and of a high order in the sight of men, but all the talent, all the skill, all the ability of the world will fail to transform the character and make a degraded child of sin a child of God, an heir of heaven. Men have no power to justify the soul, to sanctify the heart. Moral disease cannot be healed save through the power of the great Physician. The highest gift of heaven, even the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, is alone able to redeem the lost. What gratitude, what love, should fill our hearts as we contemplate the love of God! The heart should be softened and subdued as we meditate upon the risk that Jesus took in order that man might be elevated and restored. The world's Redeemer
endured sufferings commensurate to all the guilt of a lost world. The sacrifice of Christ on Calvary's cross is a consideration that surpasses all the overwhelming power of sin; and when a sense of sin presses upon the heart of the sinner, and the burden seems intolerable, Jesus invites him to look to him and live. There is power in Christ to cleanse the soul. "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

Without God sending His Son to die/pay the wage for our sins that we may have His free gift of eternal life, we are lost. The sanctuary services teach us the real meaning of the atonement.

The alternate theory is teaching us we must save ourselves, based on the life of Jesus, which means that His death meant nothing. It would take a very strong twist of the "atonement" truth to come to this conclusion. This is the theory of Babal.

Advent Review and Sabbath Herald--T- 09-22-96
Our Advocate and Our Adversary

"Satan would cover the people of God with blackness, and ruin them; but Jesus interposes. Although they had sinned, yet Jesus took the guilt of their sins upon his own soul. He snatched the race as a brand from the fire. With
his long human arm he encircled humanity, while with his divine arm he grasped the throne of the infinite God. And thus man has strength given him
that he may overcome Satan, and triumph in God. Help is brought within the reach of perishing souls; the adversary is rebuked."

Praise the Lord,

[ August 26, 2002, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Charlene Van Hook ]

To deny that Jesus was our substitute, to deny He paid the price for our transgressions is to call the Spirit of Prophecy a liar. Let us just accept the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, and not the teachings of man.

Steps to Christ---- God's Love for Man---PG- 14

"Jesus said, "Therefore doth My Father love Me,
because I lay down My life, that I might take it again."
John 10:17. That is, "My Father has so loved you
that He even loves Me more for giving My life to
redeem you. In becoming your Substitute and Surety, by surrendering My life, by taking your liabilities, your transgressions, I am endeared to My Father; for by My sacrifice, God can be just, and yet the Justifier of him who believeth in Jesus.

None but the Son of God could accomplish our
redemption; for only He who was in the bosom of
the Father could declare Him. Only He who knew
the height and depth of the love of God could make
it manifest. Nothing less than the infinite sacrifice made by Christ in behalf of fallen man could express the Father's love to lost humanity.

"God so loved the world, that He gave His
only-begotten Son." He gave Him not only to live among men, to bear their sins, and die their sacrifice. He gave Him to the fallen race. Christ was to identify Himself with the interests and needs of humanity. He who was one with God has linked Himself with the children of men by ties that are never to be broken. Jesus is "not ashamed to call them brethren" (Hebrews 2:11); He is our Sacrifice, our Advocate, our Brother, bearing our human form before the Father's
throne, and through eternal ages one with the race
He has redeemed--the Son of man. And all this that
man might be uplifted from the ruin and degradation of sin that he might reflect the love of God and share the joy of holiness.

Such love is without a parallel. Children of the
heavenly King! Precious promise! Theme for the
most profound meditation! The matchless love of
God for a world that did not love Him! The thought
has a subduing power upon the soul and brings the
mind into captivity to the will of God. The more we study the divine character in the light of the cross, the more we see mercy, tenderness, and forgiveness blended with equity and justice, and the more clearly we discern innumerable evidences of a love that is infinite and a tender pity surpassing a mother's yearning sympathy for her wayward child."

Praise God for His unspeakable Gift

I would like to hear out those who hold the alternative view. I've questioned many of those who hold this view on how they reconcile their views with the SOP myself, but most if not all are basing their views on scripture. Our focus on this thread will need to be mainly on scripture.

I would also include any SOP quotes that point to Bible texts.

What you are saying then Mark is:

You want to hear from those that do not believe in the Spirit of Prophecy and misinterpret the scriptures. Is this right? Are we soliciting error? What would our motive be? What purpose would this serve?

May I suggest that we place the truth, Bible and SOP, here and pray that none disagree with it. Let us not make a case for the alternate view. Truth automatically exposes error. This is a subtle teaching, the truth needs to be inbedded in our hearts that we may not be decieved.

Just my thoughts

Greetings to all and peace. It is my prayer that we consider truth as it is Jesus. I invite dialoque, questions and comments. May God bless you all.

The common understanding of the Substitute Sacrifice in salvation misses the mark entirely. It is based upon the concept of the 'penalty of death' to satisfy the demands of God's law (righteousness). Then it takes the position that despite his righteousness God loved us so much that he provided a Substitute Sacrifice to pay the penalty of his law (righteousness). In this manner his righteousness is satisfied and God can now forgive us and accept us, if (upon the condition that) we believe that Christ died in our place and paid the penalty for our sins, and if we ask that his death be applied to our record.

Thus in the substitute doctrine, man is saved from the penalty for sin, rather than from sin itself. This means that man is saved from God's righteousness, which means from God himself. This is why so many feel that they have to hide 'behind' Christ, and that Christ represents their case before God. In this manner Christ is their Advocate before the father. They have a saviour for sin, and not a saviour from sin.

I would like to draw special attention to the prepositions. They are of most vital importance.

Too many see themselves only saved from the results of committed sinful deeds (Past, present, future). Too many think that a 'sinner' is one who simply is 'not perfect'. One, who is perhaps 'prone to err', and therefore he needs a Saviour who is 'perfect'. They look forward to the day when they will receive a new body that is not prone to err and offers no temptation, and to live in surroundings where there is no temptation. Such an understanding of the sin problem does not even begin to realize the problem. Satan was in heaven, next to Christ, living in the presence of God where there was no sin, in a glorious body; yet, he fell from grace. Think about that, he fell from grace, he fell from God's glory.

This is the question that needs to be asked. What do we need to be saved from?

Do we need to be saved from the penalty for sin? Do we need to be saved from God's righteousness? Do we need to be saved from the righteous requirements of God's Law? No! We definitely do not need to be saved from God and his righteousness. But we need to be saved from Sin and Satan, to God and his righteousness. We need to be saved back to grace, and to God's glory.

May God give us mercy and grace to understand this great difference.

First we must consider four crucial thought concepts. The crucial thought concepts of

• 'Substitute'
• 'Risk'
• 'Penalty'
• 'Satisfying the demands of God's righteousness'

Please note that none of the above words/phrase are found in the scripture. The reader is invited to check the Strong’s Concordance.
The above words are not found/used in scripture. Yet it is significant to note that they are The crucial thought concepts in the doctrines they espouse. In fact, let's think for a moment, without them the doctrines could not exist! Yet…they are not in the…scriptures? Those who wrote the scriptures did not think with these thought concepts.
In order that we arrive to truth and not presupposed understanding, we need to carefully examine our comprehension/thought. One principle that should be an early warning sign is if we use vocabulary that is not in the scripture. Sometimes the expression may be a summary of many ideas. Then we must examine whether the contents of these ideas are consistent with the bible.

The beginning of the crucial thought concept is in the idea of 'Penalty'. It stems from the presupposed understanding of Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it; for in the day of your eating from it you shall surely die. The presupposition is that this meant that God would kill Adam as a penalty for disobedience; that the law has such penalties for making wrongs right. Let us stop and consider these two fundamental principles of what is considered to be God’s righteousness.

• That God has made a law for the purpose that it's transgressors would then be found guilty of transgression and sentenced to death.
• That the law has such penalties for making wrongs right.

Let us consider. Is this the kind of relationship that God had created with Adam? Was God arbitrarily issuing a command and then vigilantly enforcing "the immutable law"? Is this the way of life in the kingdom of heaven? Is this God’s righteousness? Is God’s righteousness a legal-istic righteousness? Is his righteousness a righteousness of the law?
The fundamental problem lies even in this erroneous view and understanding of God's righteousness.
Is this God's righteousness? If it is, then God's righteousness would be of the law, and he would be under the curse. But this is not God's righteousness! Because the law works wrath (Rom. 4:15)

That very concept is from a sinner's mind: one that is devoid of the knowledge of God's way, his life, and his righteousness. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse (Gal.3: 10). God tells us: "for my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither your ways my ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts" (Is. 55: 8,9).

Now the righteousness of God, without the law , is manifested … even the righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ … For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:21-23) God's righteousness is not a 'righteousness of the law' but it is a 'righteousness of faith'.

The kind of relationship that God established when he created man is a benevolent one. Faith was the default relationship in creation. God counseled and instructed Adam even as a Father his son. The nature of the instruction can easily be seen in the following example: 'If you touch that stove you will surely be burned', as opposed to 'if you touch that stove I will surely burn you'. He gave Adam good knowledge.

The instruction: of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat; for in the day of your eating from it you shall surely die did not mean that God would have to kill him to satisfy his righteousness. But it meant that Adam would pass from life to death. That he would pass from faith (living by God's word) to the domain of 'evil knowledge', which separates man from God and establishes self as the source and produces a 'legal-istic righteousness' (Sin) that uses the instruction of God, which was unto life, to produce death . For sin taking occasion by the commandment deceived me and by it slew me … Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. (Rom. 7:11-13) Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us … (Gal.3:13) Satan is the author of sin, self-righteousness. Sin originated in heaven, and it originated there because there was one who turned from faith in God to himself. Satan broke the relationship of faith in God and became his own source. He espoused in himself the legal-istic righteousness which judges on the outward (actions) and not the inward (spirit). To justify himself he has to oppose God. When man listened to him he became partaker of that same righteousness.

Sin is fall from faith, that is: rejection of God's judgment and assertion of ones own judgment. This by nature is and can only be opposed to God's judgment. In this manner self-righteousness is established. Sin therefore is a righteousness, which has established itself in opposition to God, is at enmity with God and wars against God. This righteousness is legal-istic in nature; that is, it is accusative and condemns others in order to self-justify. This righteousness, Sin, is graceless, merciless, self-seeking. It is debasing, demeaning and destructive. The wages of this righteousness is death. It thinks that the ultimate righteousness is reached when a transgressor is brought to 'justice' and full payment is made in death. This righteousness can only produce death. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Heb 9,22)

Let us think for a moment. A righteousness which is based upon the law (a written set of rules) can only be enacted if someone transgresses, and then it can only find fault and condemn. It is the curse of the law.

Salvation is not legalistic. Salvation is not from penalty of God's law.

Salvation is benevolent. Salvation is from sin. Sin is whatever is not of faith. Faith is, trusting God in so that I receive his judgment as mine. In this manner his righteousness is mine. God's righteousness is based on faith. God's righteousness is full of grace, mercy, goodwill, and longsuffering. God's righteousness is life giving. His judgments are enlightening. It ennobles, nurtures, and lifts ever higher and higher. It is everlasting as the life he gives is. God's righteousness delights to forgive transgression and sin and iniquity (those who oppose themselves against God) and to save them from their folly, sin, their righteousness, death. It is the gift of God. It is his glory.
'For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God'.

It is for this cause that Jesus spoke, " go ye and learn what this means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice"

The sin problem is not a problem of what God should do with imperfect or evil works, nor the record of them. It is the problem of God seeking how to save us, his enemy, from ourselves, from our perverted idea of righteousness so that we may have life. How to cut through the prison of sin and our blindness and our projection of our righteousness and judgment upon God, and reveal unto us the truth of his nature and character which is unlike ours in thought and spirit. This for the purpose so that we may be saved (become new bottles holding the new wine, receive the altogether new garment) and pass from death unto life.

The author of our legalis-istic righteousness being Satan, the accuser of the brethren, the murderer, the strongman of this world. Christ came to bind him so that then he may spoil his house. Satan, the father of lies, has continually challenged God's judgment and righteousness as can be seen in the book of Job, in Zechariah 3, in Jude 9. Foremost, he has challenged the righteousness of God.

The Father sent his Son into this world to manifest eternal life, his glory. Fallen nature being so opposed to life could endure him but a little while. Satan and his angels gathered their forces to beguile, tempt, draw away, threaten, torture, intimidate, and finally by the fear of death cause in someway that Christ should fall away from faith (the foundation of God's righteousness). That Christ should in someway, in anyway, fall prey to Satan's view, reasoning, and thus lose faith in his Father. But Christ was victorious, through death. Satan's head was crushed, while Christ's heel was bruised. And the heavens declared: Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and glory and honour … and there was no more place found in heaven for the Dragon and his angels (none would hear, no heart would receive). And the accuser of the brethren was cast out into the earth. (Rev 5:12-13; 12:7-13) I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven … the prince of this world comes and in me he finds nothing. Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the prince of this world be cast out. This is your hour and the power of darkness. (Luke 10:18; 22:53; John 12:31; 14:30;) Christ is the 'ransom'. A ransom is not a 'legal payment' but something extorted while someone is held kidnapped. God gave not required, he gave that we might be saved from the clutches of the enemy. But we, oh, we agreed with the enemy. Forasmuch then as children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Heb 2:14,15)

What does it mean to abide in death? What does it mean to pass from death unto life? (John 5:24)

Is your salvation from the 'penalty', 'wages for sin'? Or, have you received 'eternal life' - 'the gift of God' that being dead wherein you were once held, having been 'servants of sin' reaping the 'wages of sin' (the wages that sin pays), have become the servants of righteousness receiving the reward - eternal life? (Rom. ch. 6)

The scriptures tell us that while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God … the carnal mind is at enmity with God. Let us stop and consider. Who is the enemy of whom?

The Soul that sins, it shall die. … But if the wicked will turn from all his sins … and keep all my statutes, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he has committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him … Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? Says the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways and live? (Ezek.18: 20-23). … Say unto them, As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn you, turn you from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel? … Yet you say the way of the Lord is not equal. O you house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways. (Ezek. 33: 11-20)

Why the thought that God's way is not equal? Is it not that man has acquired a legal-istic righteousness in opposition to God, an enemy of God? But God will judge every one according to that person's righteousness!

Would you not rather have God's righteousness, his mind, his thoughts, and his heart to think and live by? His righteousness is life giving. His judgments are glorious. O Father, glorious is thy name!

I hope this will open thought and understanding as to what is being discussed.

Shalom

[ August 30, 2002, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: John Boskovic ]

Thanks John. Let me look this over for a day. I'll probably be back on Sabbath. Shalom.

Hi All,

I haven't studied this whole article yet, but from what I've read I'm not impressed with its truthfulness about the SDA positon. This argument is based upon the abberations that the Faith Alone crowd is putting forth as the Gospel.

quote:

---

Greetings to all and peace. It is my prayer that we consider truth as it is Jesus. I invite dialoque, questions and comments. May God bless you all.

The common understanding of the Substitute Sacrifice in salvation misses the mark entirely. It is based upon the concept of the 'penalty of death' to satisfy the demands of God's law (righteousness). Then it takes the position that despite his righteousness God loved us so much that he provided a Substitute Sacrifice to pay the penalty of his law (righteousness). In this manner his righteousness is satisfied and God can now forgive us and accept us, if (upon the condition that) we believe that Christ died in our place and paid the penalty for our sins, and if we ask that his death be applied to our record.

---

The bolded sentence above is a true strawman argument. To say that despite God's righteousness... is hardly the historical position of the SDA church. We have always held that it is because of God's righteousness that He provided a substitute. The sentence as written is an absolute falsehood. I know no one who has ever said God has saved us despite His righteousness. It sure is easy to argue against a statement like that, for that thought is truly reprehensible. I see this whole article, since it is based upon these kinds of misrepresetation, as deceptive.

quote:

---

Thus in the substitute doctrine, man is saved from the penalty for sin, rather than from sin itself. This means that man is saved from God's righteousness, which means from God himself. This is why so many feel that they have to hide 'behind' Christ, and that Christ represents their case before God. In this manner Christ is their Advocate before the father. They have a saviour for sin, and not a saviour from sin.

---

I also know of no one, other than Faith Alone proponents who believe this. It is most definitely not taught by Ellen White or the SDA church. The church's stand on sanctification has always denied this lie. Once again this is a reprehensibile position that is easy to castigate, but it is not the historical SDA position.

quote:

---

I would like to draw special attention to the prepositions. They are of most vital importance.

Too many see themselves only saved from the results of committed sinful deeds (Past, present, future). Too many think that a 'sinner' is one who simply is 'not perfect'. One, who is perhaps 'prone to err', and therefore he needs a Saviour who is 'perfect'. They look forward to the day when they will receive a new body that is not prone to err and offers no temptation, and to live in surroundings where there is no temptation. Such an understanding of the sin problem does not even begin to realize the problem. Satan was in heaven, next to Christ, living in the presence of God where there was no sin, in a glorious body; yet, he fell from grace. Think about that, he fell from grace, he fell from God's glory.

---

Once again I see another strawman here. Only the Faith Alone crowd preaches this doctrine. This is not the historical SDA Church position. We have always taught that justification is only one part of the process of salvation. And, that with the power and influence of the Holy Spirit in our lives we no longer need to be people who continually commit sin. While we are always "sinners," we are no longer slaves to sin when in a saving relationship with Jesus. The church has always taught that Jesus came to "save us from our sins."

quote:

---

This is the question that needs to be asked. What do we need to be saved from?

Do we need to be saved from the penalty for sin? Do we need to be saved from God's righteousness? Do we need to be saved from the righteous requirements of God's Law? No! We definitely do not need to be saved from God and his righteousness. But we need to be saved from Sin and Satan, to God and his righteousness. We need to be saved back to grace, and to God's glory.

---

I don't see where the historical SDA position has ever stated the bolded part above. I have never been taught that, and I went through 12 years of SDA education. This is once again a straw man. It does not address the real position, and as such it is very easy to argue against. It is a very deceptive argument.

quote:

---

May God give us mercy and grace to understand this great difference.

First we must consider four crucial thought concepts. The crucial thought concepts of

'Substitute'
'Risk'
'Penalty'
'Satisfying the demands of God's righteousness'
Please note that none of the above words/phrase are found in the scripture. The reader is invited to check the Strong’s Concordance.
The above words are not found/used in scripture. Yet it is significant to note that they are The crucial thought concepts in the doctrines they espouse. In fact, let's think for a moment, without them the doctrines could not exist! Yet…they are not in the…scriptures? Those who wrote the scriptures did not think with these thought concepts.
In order that we arrive to truth and not presupposed understanding, we need to carefully examine our comprehension/thought. One principle that should be an early warning sign is if we use vocabulary that is not in the scripture. Sometimes the expression may be a summary of many ideas. Then we must examine whether the contents of these ideas are consistent with the bible.

The beginning of the crucial thought concept is in the idea of 'Penalty'. It stems from the presupposed understanding of Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it; for in the day of your eating from it you shall surely die. The presupposition is that this meant that God would kill Adam as a penalty for disobedience; that the law has such penalties for making wrongs right. Let us stop and consider these two fundamental principles of what is considered to be God’s righteousness.

That God has made a law for the purpose that it's transgressors would then be found guilty of transgression and sentenced to death.
That the law has such penalties for making wrongs right.
Let us consider. Is this the kind of relationship that God had created with Adam? Was God arbitrarily issuing a command and then vigilantly enforcing "the immutable law"? Is this the way of life in the kingdom of heaven? Is this God’s righteousness? Is God’s righteousness a legal-istic righteousness? Is his righteousness a righteousness of the law?
The fundamental problem lies even in this erroneous view and understanding of God's righteousness.
Is this God's righteousness? If it is, then God's righteousness would be of the law, and he would be under the curse. But this is not God's righteousness! Because the law works wrath (Rom. 4:15)

---

Once again what is being argued against right here is what the Faith Alone crowd disseminates. It is not based upon historical SDA teachings. This argument is based upon a misrepresentation of what SDA's have historically believed. The statements that God has put forth a plan of salvation despite His righteousness and that we have to hide behind Christ because saving from sin itself is not a part of salvation are two misrepresetations that I find most disagreeable, and totally false misrepresentations. I also know of no one who has taught that God's righteousness is legalistic, other than those of the Faith Alone persuasion when they argue against the idea that part of the plan of salvation is the changing of our sinful characters into the image of the character of God. As these three premises are the basis for this whole article I leave you to make up your own minds as to the agenda of it's author.

I may comment upon this some more, but I doubt it. As the basis for this article is false, so are any conclusions that it will draw in what it says about what the SDA church has always taught. Anytime you reason from a false premise for your basis you will come to a faulty conclusion. You can't get around it.

[ August 30, 2002, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Gary K ]

Gary,

You may also wish to check out the parallel topic in the SDA Church Issues forum.

I am not making any comments here yet until this topic here has developed further.