|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,214
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
|
|
|
9 registered members (Daryl, dedication, daylily, TheophilusOne, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,516
guests, and 9
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Did Christ bear our sin/guilt? A dialogue with SDA's who say 'No'.
#45517
08/31/02 12:25 AM
08/31/02 12:25 AM
|
|
|
Gary K
Thank you for your comments. And Please post more ....this is a false doctrine that needs to be exposed.
I know you have time constraints, i appreciate that, so when you have time... hope to hear from you
Charlene
|
|
|
Re: Did Christ bear our sin/guilt? A dialogue with SDA's who say 'No'.
#45518
08/31/02 02:29 AM
08/31/02 02:29 AM
|
New Member (Starting to Post)
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7
Ottawa
|
|
The doctrine of vicarious substitution creates a few problems.
I see an issue with the concept of forgiveness.
Jer 36:3 ...that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.
Psalm 85:2 Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin.
Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
How is it that God forgives us yet at the same time exacts a penalty for wrong? These concepts are are mutually exclusive either you forgive someone a debt or you insist on payment. To attempt both is an oxymoron. Of course consequences may still remain but the core issue is guilt and the dispensing of it.
If Christ's death paid the penalty of sin then were all the acts of forgiveness before the cross tentative.. only credit transactions not true payments?
If ultimately all "debts" must be paid then is God not able to forgive? If he can't forgive then requiring us to forgive one another with no strings attached could be called unfair. One might say that our acts of foregiveness are more noble than His. This can't be!
Is the scriptural concept of forgiveness different from our contemporary meaning?
The question of forgiveness I believe leads to our view of the law.
1Tim 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
These and other New Test text present the law as a consequence or a necessity brought about by sin. A law can't forgive but a person can. Do we serve God or the law?
|
|
|
Re: Did Christ bear our sin/guilt? A dialogue with SDA's who say 'No'.
#45519
08/31/02 08:47 AM
08/31/02 08:47 AM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
Hello DW. Thanks a lot for joining us. I don't put much weight in so called scholarship, but there is a learned Jew that I've read that I'm going to quote from below. You've brought up forgiveness, and so, the connection between your comments and what I've posted below is my view of the biblical model of forgiveness. In the sacrificial system, we’re told almost all things were cleansed by blood, and without blood, there was no cleansing of sin. The Mosaic law contained a prohibition against eating blood, the reason being that the life of the animal is in its blood. In symbol therefore, the blood, which is the animal’s life, is used to make atonement for the individual. Rather than requiring the blood and life of the sinner, the blood and life of the animal is substituted. Alfred Edershiem, a converted Jew who researched ancient Judaism and wrote on the temple and the sacrificial system summarizes the essence of the sacrificial system in this way: quote:
The fundamental idea of sacrifice in the Old Testament is that of substitution, which again seems to imply everything else - atonement and redemption, vicarious punishment and forgiveness. The first fruits go for the whole products; the firstlings for the flock; the redemption-money for that which cannot be offered; and the life of the sacrifice, which is in its blood (Lev. 17:11) for the life of the sacrificer. Hence also the strict prohibition to partake of the blood. Even in the ‘Korban” gift (Mark 7:11) or free-will offering, it is still the gift for the giver. The idea of substitution as introduced, adopted, and sanctioned by God Himself, is expressed by the sacrificial term rendered in our version ‘atonement’, but which really means covering, the substitute in the acceptance of God taking the place of, and so covering, as it were, the person of the offerer.
Hence the Scriptural experience; “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered… unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity” (Ps. 32:12, 1); and perhaps also the Scriptural prayer: “Behold, O God, our shield, and look upon the face of Thine Anointed’ (Ps. 84:9). Such sacrifices, however, necessarily pointed to a mediatorial priesthood, through whom alike they and the purified worshippers should be brought near to God, and kept in fellowship with Him. Yet these priests themselves continually changed; their own persons and services needed purification, and their sacrifices required constant renewal, since, in the nature of it, such substitution conld not be perfect. In short, all this was symbolical. . . Til He should come to whom it all pointed, and who had all along given reality to it; He whose Priesthood was perfect, and who on a perfect altar brought a perfect sacrifice, once for all - -a perfect Substitute, and a perfect Mediator. The Temple - Its Ministry and Services by Alfred Edersheim, page 76.
The idea that Christ bore my particular sins Himself creates a direct link between myself and Him. I think “Amazing! awesome! He did that for me?!? My sins put Him on the cross and yet He loves me even more for having taken my place and paid my debt? This is hard to believe. It’s too good to be true.” But inside I know it is true. It is a wonderful assurance. This isn’t just a feeling, however.
If Christ did not bear my sin and guilt there is no personal connection between His sacrifice and me. The relationship becomes impersonal because Christ has died not for what I did - something very concrete - but for the results of what I did - something I cannot possibly comprehend. I can no more understand the results of my sin than Adam could comprehend a fraction of the consequences of his disobedience at the fall. And there is no payment of my debt. Instead of a direct link between all parties, there is a mysterious, incomprehensible fix that goes on behind the scenes. Whereas with Christ as my surety, the debt I owe the bank (that is, the Law) is paid by Christ directly on my account, now, the bank (Law) is paid off in general (by the IMF - The Intergalactic Morality Fund?) not because there is a debt I personally owe, but because it is good policy to keep the moral economy of the universe afloat.
So in this model, the biblical concepts of mercy and justice and the love of God are changed. You who hold this view teach that God is not directly concerned with sin. How did you arrive here? One of the things I see, is the fruit of the idea that God does not directly ever punish sin. Instead, He allows sin to take its course and the person eventually reaps what he has sown. But God never punishes - directly. If He never punishes directly, He never forgives - directly. If He does neither directly, there is no personal connection between God and humanity.
But the gospel tells me the opposite. God is directly dealing with sinners and sin. You who think otherwise, do you not see the good news that Christ paid your debt personally? By not acknowledging this aren't you are creating a gulf between yourselves and Him. Christ is a personal Saviour. He didn't come to deal with sin at an impersonal level. He came to fix your heart and mine. The only way to do that is to atone for the evil that we have done - our evil deeds. God has consigned all to disobedience that He might have mercy on all Paul says. He did not consign all to an evil nature, He consigned all to disobedience. His atonement is for evil actions, thoughts and motives, because these are the root of the problem.
[ August 31, 2002, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: Mark Shipowick ]
|
|
|
Re: Did Christ bear our sin/guilt? A dialogue with SDA's who say 'No'.
#45520
08/31/02 10:30 AM
08/31/02 10:30 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2023
Veteran Member
|
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 982
Colville, Wa
|
|
quote:
The doctrine of vicarious substitution creates a few problems.
The concept of ga'al, which is the principle upon which Boaz redeemed Ruth, is based upon this. In Hebrew, and in some other Middle Eastern law, vicarious substitution was a valid principle. For further study see Job 19:25, Psalm 19:40, Psalm 78:35, Proverbs 23:11, Isaiah 41:14, 43:14, 44:6, 24, 47:4, 48:17, 49:7, 49:26, 54:5, 54:8, 59:20, 60:16, 63:16, and Jeremiah 50:34. In each of these verses the word translated as Redeemer, each and every one specific references to Christ, is ga'al.
quote:
H1350
גּאל
gâ'al
gaw-al'
A primitive root, to redeem (according to the Oriental law of kinship), that is, to be the next of kin (and as such to buy back a relative’s property, marry his widow, etc.): - X in any wise, X at all, avenger, deliver, (do, perform the part of near, next) kinsfolk (-man), purchase, ransom, redeem (-er), revenger.
quote:
H1350
גּאל
gâ'al
BDB Definition:
1) to redeem, act as kinsman-redeemer, avenge, revenge, ransom, do the part of a kinsman
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to act as kinsman, do the part of next of kin, act as kinsman-redeemer
1a1a) by marrying brother’s widow to beget a child for him, to redeem from slavery, to redeem land, to exact vengeance
1a2) to redeem (by payment)
1a3) to redeem (with God as subject)
1a3a) individuals from death
1a3b) Israel from Egyptian bondage
1a3c) Israel from exile
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to redeem oneself
1b2) to be redeemed
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 300
While the proponents of the Moral Influence theory do not like vicarious substitution this principle is clearly taught all the way through the OT. In fact, every time you see the word Redeemer in the OT it has been translated as such from ga'al. So, to keep on promoting something quite contrary to vicarious substitution clearly is against the prophecies of the OT, and the principle of redemption that God used to teach His people about Himself and the coming Ga'al throughout the OT.
The Moral Influence people have a huge problem with this. They cannot explain this away. Their doctrine would do away with a Redeemer. Their doctrine would do away with their being Redeemed by our Elder Brother. Our closest relative capable of redeeming us from spiritual Egypt, from paying the price for our redemption. They obviously have not studied their OT closely enough, when they want to do away with each and every reference to their Redeemer.
[ August 31, 2002, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: Gary K ]
|
|
|
Re: Did Christ bear our sin/guilt? A dialogue with SDA's who say 'No'.
#45521
08/31/02 11:45 AM
08/31/02 11:45 AM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
Gery, it would be interesting to look at other middle eastern examples of substitution outside of the Jewish system, but I don't think we need to. The examples in the Mosaic Law are the ones that are divinely inspired, and are the major theme. You've given another good example.
Many more exist. The laws covering the redemption of slaves. The laws of purification from contact with the dead. The laws governing the Nazarite vow., etc. But the primary illustration, the one that God most often called the attention of Israel back to, the one that is the cornerstone of the sanctuary system is the Passover ritual, a symbol of Israel's redemption from spiritual slavery. I think it would be good to focus on that and look at the symbolism.
|
|
|
Re: Did Christ bear our sin/guilt? A dialogue with SDA's who say 'No'.
#45522
08/31/02 12:05 PM
08/31/02 12:05 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
Good morning and Sabbath blessings to you all.
I would not have put this subject in the setting that Mark did, such as old and new, but as Mark said he was in someway trying to work his way to bring up the subject of the purpose and place of Christ's death and it's meaning in salvation.
The subject we are dealing with predates time, as it is really the subject of "the kingdom of God and his righteousness" and more specifically how it is revealed in redemption. I trust that we all desire to have a full and true understanding, to know Him, and to be partakers of his kingdom and his righteousness.
In my reference to the common understanding, I am not addressing historic Adventism, I am speaking of the 'current prevailing common understanding'. There are certainly many variations, and those who hold things substantially different. I think that the reader should be able to know the difference of their position and the virtue of it. It is precisely this that is wanted, that we may know the virtue of what we hold. Let each one bring forth that which is dear to them, the virtue of their realizations, and as we question and answer we may all be enriched.
In order to communicate meaningfully we need to stay away from 'prejudged, prepackaged, labeled, references', as they close the mind, and the reader may not know what is referred to.
Hi Gary, I agree that people do not 'say' despite , but … well, would you please tell us how the because works.
Hi Mark, interesting post. I will comment soon.
Hi Donovan, yes good point. How do we see forgiveness?
Gary, Christ most certainly is our Redeemer, this is the specific of out topic. To understand redemption, what it is, and what it is not, from who, what, and to who, what.
|
|
|
Re: Did Christ bear our sin/guilt? A dialogue with SDA's who say 'No'.
#45523
08/31/02 12:33 PM
08/31/02 12:33 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
Just two passages on the Passover:
ICorinthians 5:7
5:7 . . . For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
Exodus 12
12:1 And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 12:2 This month [shall be] unto you the beginning of months: it [shall be] the first month of the year to you. 12:3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth [day] of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of [their] fathers, a lamb for an house: 12:4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take [it] according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take [it] out from the sheep, or from the goats: 12:6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. 12:7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike [it] on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; [and] with bitter [herbs] they shall eat it. 12:9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast [with] fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. 12:10 And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire. 12:11 And thus shall ye eat it; [with] your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it [is] the Lord's passover. 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I [am] the Lord. 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye [are]: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy [you], when I smite the land of Egypt. 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
|
|
|
Re: Did Christ bear our sin/guilt? A dialogue with SDA's who say 'No'.
#45524
08/31/02 08:42 PM
08/31/02 08:42 PM
|
|
|
Greetings from Michigan
Having read several posting about why Jesus had to die and just exactly what his death did or did not do for us I would suggest another e-mail group that really gets into this subject. Try converstions about ****** all one word of course. Or you can find it also at *******.
Both of these sites offer stimulating idea's that will drive you to your knee's and your bible.
Here is a question for you: The sop says that Jesus death was for sinless angles. Why did he have to die for sinless beings?
In his love
Rod Dunneback
==============
Until we, the moderators and I, have a chance to check out these sites, I have edited them out of this post. If we approve these sites, I will edit them back in again.
Daryl Fawcett
Administrator
[ August 31, 2002, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Daryl Fawcett ]
|
|
|
Re: Did Christ bear our sin/guilt? A dialogue with SDA's who say 'No'.
#45525
08/31/02 09:31 PM
08/31/02 09:31 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
Hi Mark. I had a chance to review your post.
Yes indeed. God is directly dealing with sinners and sin, and Christ is indeed a personal Saviour. There is a truth (understood correctly) in him bearing your particular sins himself, which is a direct link between you and him.
But I do have a problem understanding your statement of you not comprehending that he died for the 'results of what you did' (not that I profess that) and at the same time being delighted that he took your place and paid your 'debt'. Is the 'debt' not the 'result of what you did'? How did you obtain your debt and to whom are you indebted, and who exacted it?
Also I would like you to explain how did Christ die for what you did? What you did is an action said and done, something 'concrete', unless the action was that of you crucifying him. Is this a spiritual application or does it reflect back to the 'debt' which is the 'result'? Or do you mean that "whosoever has done it unto the least of these has done it unto me", which means it is your action against Christ, so he suffered your actions? If so, how does that pay your debt? I am sorry I cannot comprehend what you are saying, please explain.
In reference to your bank analogy, I am fairly lost with the IMF, you will need to define.
In the bible Christ gave parables of debt. The debt was personal and to a person. The King frankly forgave them both. (Luke 7:42) How does forgiveness enter your picture?
God is directly concerned with sin, the deeds or the results of them. However that is not where the problem in salvation is. We find that this debt can be personally frankly forgiven. It is his glory to forgive! Christ did not die for that which we can be forgiven, or to enable God to forgive. He died to save us from Sin-the Master, so that we may be set free and become the sons of God. He died as the Shepherd facing the wolf.
Well, there will be more on that but first I would like to hear your answers.
In reference to your comments regarding God judging the world and his direct involvement. Absolutely, everyone ia accountable before God, and therefore indeed he can forgive. This is a very good point. However the common understanding of the purposes he judges for and the standards he judges by is missing the mark. This has to do with the understanding of God's righteousness, and I will post more on that later.
One more thought. You quoted "God has consigned all to disobedience …". The scripture says concluded, shut up in disobedience . There is a difference. The statement reflects an assessed situation (something after the fact) and not consigned which means 'sent into'. God did not send us into sin, disobedience, but he is a faithful judge, speaking truth. He assessed, concluded, shut up all 'under sin'. So that none may argue the point and justify himself, but so that the promise might be given to those who are of the faith of Jesus Christ. (Gal: 3,22-29)
Look forward to your post.
Shalom
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
