|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,213
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 (daylily, TheophilusOne, dedication, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,491
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48052
03/13/06 06:16 PM
03/13/06 06:16 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Angels will rejoice that sin will be no more. God, and angels, will be very sorry to see God's children die.1. That may be true, I don't know, because that's not how the Bible or the SOP describes their feelings. God is, no doubt, sorry they did not repent, but He will not be sorry when they receive their reward because they are "worthy". I don't see how anyone who knows God at all could not know that this is true. There are many places in both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy where God's describes His feelings. Remember that God will wipe away every tear. This indicates that there has been weeping. Here is a reference from Scripture and the SOP revealing God's heart: Hos. 11:1-8; Ed. 263. More can be provided if desired.3. Yes, it is in the heart of God to pardon, but it is also in the heart of God to punish and destroy sinners. According to Jesus, destroying is not in God's heart: quote:
And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. (Luke 9:54-56)
It's amazing how often Jesus said something similar: The Son of Man came not to destroy, but to save. The Son of Man came not to condemn, but to save. The Son of Man does not judge. He saves. Jesus gave this message in many different ways, at many different times, but we seem not to want to hear, or believe, the Good News that God does not wish to destroy us, but rather to save us. He takes no delight in the death of the wicked. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth. There is joy in heaven when one sinner repents. One wonders how God could more clearly communicate this truth than what He has done.
God cannot pardon sinners without just cause. He is justified in justifying sinners because our sin debt was paid on the cross. Were it not for the substitutionary death of Jesus God would have had no option but to punish and destroy Adam and Eve the instant they sinned. Pardon is impossible without the death and righteousness of Jesus.
It looks like you've the cart before the horse here. Here's the reason the death of Christ makes pardon possible:
quote:
Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God.(DA 762)
From Scripture:
quote:
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. (1 Pet. 3:18)
Pardon would not have entered God's mind had Jesus not offered His blood and righteousness as an atonement.
Do you really mean to suggest that God only thought of pardoning us because Jesus offered His blood on our behalf? God was thinking, "I'm going to destroy man, because of His sin." and Jesus said, "Wait! I offer My blood." and God said, "Oh! Ok, then. Never mind."
God is a jealous God and will by no means clear or justify the guilty, unrepentant sinner.
Here is an excellent explanation as to the character of God's pardon from George Fifield:
quote:
Any pardon and any forgiveness that would not take away the effect of sin, but that would lead us more and more into sin, and into the misery that comes from sin, would be worth nothing. If the law of God was an arbitrary thing, that did not have any penalty attached to it, the Lord could say, I will pardon you. But when you transgress the law, it is death; and when you keep the law, it is life and joy and peace....
If God had not been wise, He might have pardoned our sins in an imprudent way. Now, brethren, every father in this world knows what it is to want to let his children do things which they would enjoy doing, and he has to restrain that which would bring present pleasure, restrain that love, because of the evil effects it would have.
Was sin ever less repentant than at the foot of the cross? There you have the thing. There was God revealing Himself in Christ on the cross, and there was sin unrepentant, hatred and mocking at the foot of the cross. How did God feel toward those unrepentant sinners? -- "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." That is how Christ felt, and that is how God felt. He did not have any grudge against them. He would like to forgive everybody. But why could He not do it? -- It would annul His law, if it was an arbitrary law; but if it were not, it would lead men to go into sin, and sin and death would result. It would be God simply taking the place of the imprudent father and spoiling his child. And therefore, because He could not do that, He set forth Christ to be, not the propitiation of God's wrath, but the propitiation of our sin, that God might be just, and still the justifier of them who believe in Jesus; because He would take the sins away from them if they believed in Him, and then He could set them free, and be just in doing it, for He would not lead anybody else into sin in doing it.
O, I am so glad that we have a God whose very nature and disposition is to pardon sin; that we have a Father who is not holding any grudge against us, but instead of that is giving His own life, in His Son, that He my so manifest His love as to bring us back to Him, and so give us the life power as to live His life. It was needed that His life should be revealed, and His divine life imparted, that we might live that life on earth; and that is what He did in Christ. O, I am so glad we have such a God as that, who gives His own life to win us back to Him! The love of God is the one changing thing in a universe of change. (1897 GCB, I think)
The fact is that sin causes pain, suffering, misery and death. There's nothing God can do about this. God can, however, transform selfish rebels who hate Him and the principles of His government into loving subjects who admire Him, the attributes of His character, and the principles of His government. By beholding we become changed.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48053
03/13/06 11:29 PM
03/13/06 11:29 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
You well portray the fuel for sanctification, with this change of outlook regarding God's character of love. You have not properly presented the basis for justification of the mind, that the attitude of the sinner be changed away from hostility to God. You may profess your death in Christ's cross, but your explanations exclude such a meaning for his death, let alone that it should include you. quote:
And therefore, because He could not do that, He set forth Christ to be, not the propitiation of God's wrath, but the propitiation of our sin, that God might be just, and still the justifier of them who believe in Jesus; because He would take the sins away from them if they believed in Him, and then He could set them free, and be just in doing it, for He would not lead anybody else into sin in doing it. (Fifield)
This is contrary to Rom 3:25; 5:9. Propitiation is the Biblical appeasing of God's wrath against sin, in the death of Jesus: it never atones for sin. Jesus saves us from the wrath of God.
Your drive for God's character to be clearly revealed isn't the problem, but your exclusion of propitiation is.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48054
03/14/06 03:09 AM
03/14/06 03:09 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Colin, we're sort of having a one way conversation here. If you want to have a dialog, you need to respond to me, as I've been responding to you. I asked you a question in my previous post to you. Please answer it. You haven't produced any statements by Jesus to support the legal arguments you have been suggesting, so I trust you agree with me that He didn't teach it. I'm still curious as to how such an important idea as the reason for His death is something He would never have touched on. Regarding Romans 3:25, this simply says Christ was the propitiation for our sins. It doesn't say who was propitiated. I'm not sure where you stand on R. J. Wieland's writings, but he says that it was not God who was propitiated, but we. And he's right! God has no need to be propitiated because God was never angry at us. God so loved the world that He gave His Son. As Fifield points out: quote:
God in Christ. Every text in the Bible that speaks of the atonement, when we get it right, makes God the one who makes the atonement in Christ; not Christ simply, but God in Christ; just as God in Christ creates, redeems, reconciles, He makes the atonement. And every time the atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation are mentioned, it leads us right back to the character of God. (GCB 1897; Fifield)
God had no need to be reconciled to us, no need for propitiation, because He was not at odds with us. We were the ones who needed to be reconciled!
Now if you want to establish a point of view, it's not enough to simply state it. You have one view of Romans 3:25; I have another (as do the others I mentioned). The time honored principle for interpreting Scripture is to interpret controverted texts with uncontroverted ones. Consider the following text:
quote:
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. (1 Pet. 3:18)
There's no doubt this is saying that Christ died to bring us to God.
Romans 5:8-10 reads:
quote:
8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Verse 10 brings out that we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son, which is exactly the point I've been making. Verse 9 says we are justified (set right) by His blood, which is a point I've also been making.
The reason I assume you quoted Romans 5:9 is the last part of the verse which says "we shall be saved from wrath through him." I assume you think that the "wrath" being spoken of here is God's wrath.
Once again, I don't know your feelings on R. J. Wieland's writings. I'm taking an educated guess that you may be in harmony with them because you have professed an appreciation of the 1888 message, and of course RJW has been a chief proponent of the same. RJW understands the "wrath" being spoken of here is not God's wrath. And I believe he's right again! Many others take this same view.
The two texts you have suggested do not proove anything. Please present some form of an argument.
Here's my argument:
a)Because of sin, man began to view God in a way He is not. Man became estranged from God. (Gen 3)
b)God so loved the world He gave His Son that we might look at live. By beholding the cross, we are brought back to God. (John 3:14-16;1 Pet. 3:18)
c)The cross reconciles us, and not only us, but the entire universe by revealing the character of God, thus winning the Great Controversy. (Col 1:14-20)
d)One can find many verses which speak of the cross revealing the love of God, and bringing us into harmony with God. (some that come immediately to mind are John 3:14-16; Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 2:22-24). However one can find no verses which present Christ's death as providing God a legal right to forgive us. The closest one can come is by misinterpreting Rom. 3:18-25. However, this is a controverted passage. I contend, for example, that this passage means precisely the following:
quote:
The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. (DA 22)
and I have sound exegetical reasons for believing such. But again, controverted passages should be interpreted by uncontroverted ones. It's not sufficient to have a preconceived idea in mind, take it to some passage, and then declare that the passage agrees with the preconcieved notion.
As John pointed out, the word "legal" doesn't even appear.
e)In addition to the Scriptures I've mentioned in the epistles, there are the words and teachings of Jesus. Many of Jesus' words are exactly in harmony with the ideas I have been presenting. Many parables teach these ideas. I've already mentioned the parable of the servant forgiven the 10,000 talents and the parable of the prodigal son. There is also the parable of the two worshipers. There is John 12:32. I could mention many more, but this should suffice.
Christ's teachings were pregnant with the idea that God wins us to Himself by revealing His character through His Son. The entire book of John is dedicated to this theme (indeed, the whole Bible, but John is particularly clear that this is his purpose).
There is not even one statement of Jesus which suggests that God gave Christ to us for the purpose of obtaining a legal right to forgive us.
Much more could be added, but I've probably already been too long, so I will abruptly end.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48055
03/14/06 12:33 PM
03/14/06 12:33 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, can I assume we agree on the 3 points I made in my last post?
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48056
03/14/06 01:47 PM
03/14/06 01:47 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Did you see my response three posts above this last one you just now posted?
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48057
03/14/06 04:36 PM
03/14/06 04:36 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Colin, we're sort of having a one way conversation here. If you want to have a dialog, you need to respond to me, as I've been responding to you. I asked you a question in my previous post to you. Please answer it.
You haven't produced any statements by Jesus to support the legal arguments you have been suggesting, so I trust you agree with me that He didn't teach it. I'm still curious as to how such an important idea as the reason for His death is something He would never have touched on.
Regarding Romans 3:25, this simply says Christ was the propitiation for our sins. It doesn't say who was propitiated. I'm not sure where you stand on R. J. Wieland's writings, but he says that it was not God who was propitiated, but we. And he's right! God has no need to be propitiated because God was never angry at us. God so loved the world that He gave His Son.
Where does one start...? - at the sanctuary service, since you've just decimated it. The sacrifice of lambs as individual sin offerings fulfilled the requirement of atonement - only by the shedding of blood. Blood was shed for propitiation since the life of the animal was in the blood, and a life was to be sacrificed as the penalty for sin. This was done in faith of the coming Lamb of God.
Christ fulfilled the sanctuary service by giving his life in shedding his blood. Exhibiting agape is an extra, since Rom 6:23 is the gift of a life given to save us from death - not primarily helping us to understand agape. No-one objects to Christ's visible agape being attractive: excluding his sacrifice as a payment for the death penalty due us as sinners is what one disagrees with, since that is the connection both between his death and our death and his humanity and our humanity. Those connections I picked up from Wieland - yes, and what wrath do you think he attributes Rom 5:9 to? Or is it the wrath you object to, and not the death due sinners?
How do you deal with Rom 1:18, then, for it identifies "the wrath of God against...all unrighteousness"? quote:
As Fifield points out:
quote:
God in Christ. Every text in the Bible that speaks of the atonement, when we get it right, makes God the one who makes the atonement in Christ; not Christ simply, but God in Christ; just as God in Christ creates, redeems, reconciles, He makes the atonement. And every time the atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation are mentioned, it leads us right back to the character of God. (GCB 1897; Fifield)
God had no need to be reconciled to us, no need for propitiation, because He was not at odds with us. We were the ones who needed to be reconciled!
Now if you want to establish a point of view, it's not enough to simply state it. You have one view of Romans 3:25; I have another (as do the others I mentioned). The time honored principle for interpreting Scripture is to interpret controverted texts with uncontroverted ones.
Now just bear in mind that you differ here with the SDA Church's position, so I don't need to enunciate my position, so much as to take the church's position as given. On this topic it is accurate. quote:
Consider the following text:
quote:
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. (1 Pet. 3:18)
There's no doubt this is saying that Christ died to bring us to God.
Romans 5:8-10 reads:
quote:
8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Verse 10 brings out that we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son, which is exactly the point I've been making. Verse 9 says we are justified (set right) by His blood, which is a point I've also been making.
The reason I assume you quoted Romans 5:9 is the last part of the verse which says "we shall be saved from wrath through him." I assume you think that the "wrath" being spoken of here is God's wrath.
Once again, I don't know your feelings on R. J. Wieland's writings. I'm taking an educated guess that you may be in harmony with them because you have professed an appreciation of the 1888 message, and of course RJW has been a chief proponent of the same. RJW understands the "wrath" being spoken of here is not God's wrath. And I believe he's right again! Many others take this same view.
The two texts you have suggested do not proove anything. Please present some form of an argument.
Here's my argument:
a)Because of sin, man began to view God in a way He is not. Man became estranged from God. (Gen 3)
b)God so loved the world He gave His Son that we might look at live. By beholding the cross, we are brought back to God. (John 3:14-16;1 Pet. 3:18)
c)The cross reconciles us, and not only us, but the entire universe by revealing the character of God, thus winning the Great Controversy. (Col 1:14-20)
d)One can find many verses which speak of the cross revealing the love of God, and bringing us into harmony with God. (some that come immediately to mind are John 3:14-16; Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 2:22-24). However one can find no verses which present Christ's death as providing God a legal right to forgive us. The closest one can come is by misinterpreting Rom. 3:18-25. However, this is a controverted passage. I contend, for example, that this passage means precisely the following:
quote:
The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. (DA 22)
and I have sound exegetical reasons for believing such. But again, controverted passages should be interpreted by uncontroverted ones. It's not sufficient to have a preconceived idea in mind, take it to some passage, and then declare that the passage agrees with the preconcieved notion.
As John pointed out, the word "legal" doesn't even appear.
e)In addition to the Scriptures I've mentioned in the epistles, there are the words and teachings of Jesus. Many of Jesus' words are exactly in harmony with the ideas I have been presenting. Many parables teach these ideas. I've already mentioned the parable of the servant forgiven the 10,000 talents and the parable of the prodigal son. There is also the parable of the two worshipers. There is John 12:32. I could mention many more, but this should suffice.
Christ's teachings were pregnant with the idea that God wins us to Himself by revealing His character through His Son. The entire book of John is dedicated to this theme (indeed, the whole Bible, but John is particularly clear that this is his purpose).
There is not even one statement of Jesus which suggests that God gave Christ to us for the purpose of obtaining a legal right to forgive us.
Much more could be added, but I've probably already been too long, so I will abruptly end.
What did God does in Christ, in the name of love??! The first 3 chapters of Romans contrast God's righteousness and holiness, with man's unrighteousness and sin, producing the judgement of God against sin which is accompanied by his wrath against sin. Yet, he loves the sinner. Vol.12 of our Bible Commentary, p.178-180, settles the wrath or no wrath Christian debate in favour of wrath, since the Bible doesn't allow for getting rid of it by Rom 3:25 after its introduction in Rom 1:18.
Without sacrifice there can be no forgiveness, since "without shedding of blood there is no remission" (Heb 9:22). "I have given it for you upon the alter to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life." (Lev 17:11) God's holiness requires sin to be punished, but his love ensures that sinners can be atoned for.
Sin carries a penalty (Rom 6:23), but, since God is love he provides the lamb for suffering the penalty (Gen 22:8; Jn 3:16). Mark 10:45 has "give his life a ransom for many", which payment was to the law of God for the penalty it exacted of sinners. Also 'ransom for' obviously means paying for another, and the law of God demands the death of the wrong doer; yet, God in Christ suffered that penalty to satisfy Rom 6:23's death sentence on all sinners.
God's wrath isn't against sinners, but against sin. You clearly haven't allowed for that till now: do you actually?? It's based on his holiness, so that he is a consuming fire. His wrath expresses his justice, after his law has been broken, and his death in his Son expresses his love to turn his wrath away from us when his Son suffered for us.
If you're going to emphasise God's character, to re-assert it as the neglected target of our knowledge of God, don't abandon the actions of his love in saving us from our death penalty as sinners, or you'll neglect to tell the whole truth.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48058
03/14/06 04:52 PM
03/14/06 04:52 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Thanks very much Colin for your detailed response. I'll read it carefully and get back to you.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48059
03/14/06 05:21 PM
03/14/06 05:21 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Where does one start...? - at the sanctuary service, since you've just decimated it. I'm not seeing this. I think every single thing I suggest is demonstrated by the Sanctuary service, you would agree with. The difference in our view is that you would say my list is not sufficient. However, I could produce a health list of things the sanctuary service demonstrates, so I don't see how this could possibly be described as "decimated" (unless you have the technical meaning of the word in mind, rather than the colloquial one)The sacrifice of lambs as individual sin offerings fulfilled the requirement of atonement - only by the shedding of blood. Blood was shed for propitiation since the life of the animal was in the blood, and a life was to be sacrificed as the penalty for sin. This was done in faith of the coming Lamb of God. Christ fulfilled the sanctuary service by giving his life in shedding his blood. Exhibiting agape is an extra, since Rom 6:23 is the gift of a life given to save us from death - not primarily helping us to understand agape. No-one objects to Christ's visible agape being attractive: excluding his sacrifice as a payment for the death penalty due us as sinners is what one disagrees with, since that is the connection both between his death and our death and his humanity and our humanity. Those connections I picked up from Wieland - yes, and what wrath do you think he attributes Rom 5:9 to? Or is it the wrath you object to, and not the death due sinners? Wieland ascribes the wrath to us in Romans 5:9. He uses the same arguments I am. Exactly. We are the ones that need to be propitiated. We are the ones who need to be reconciled. He talks about propitiation in his book "Grace on Trial." I can't recall where he talks about "wrath" in Romans 5:9.
I don't disagree with the idea that Christ paid the death penalty due us as sinners. This just means something different to me than it does to you.
I'd say where the biggest difference between us lies is in your statement that "Exhibiting agape is an extra." It was exhibiting agape that saves us, and also secures the universe. This is precisely what was needed. Following are some SOP statements that bring this out.
I'll mention the points they bring out, and end this post with these quotes, since this post will already be quite long. I'll consider the rest of your points in subsequent posts.
She points out in these quotes that in order to bring man back to God, God's love needed to be revealed. She points out the the cross was the greatest revelation of that love. She points out that it is not only for man that this revelation accomplishes a reconciliation, but the entire unfallen universe is secured by this revelation of love.
quote:
The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. (DA 22)
quote:
Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (GC 763)
quote:
The death of Christ upon the cross made sure the destruction of him who has the power of death, who was the originator of sin. When Satan is destroyed, there will be none to tempt to evil; the atonement will never need to be repeated; and there will be no danger of another rebellion in the universe of God. That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. Fallen men could not have a home in the paradise of God without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Shall we not then exalt the cross of Christ? The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God. The plan of salvation, making manifest the justice and love of God, provides an eternal safeguard against defection in unfallen worlds, as well as among those who shall be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. Our only hope is perfect trust in the blood of Him who can save to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him. The death of Christ on the cross of Calvary is our only hope in this world, and it will be our theme in the world to come. Oh, we do not comprehend the value of the atonement! If we did, we would talk more about it. The gift of God in his beloved Son was the expression of an incomprehensible love. It was the utmost that God could do to preserve the honor of his law, and still save the transgressor. Why should man not study the theme of redemption? It is the greatest subject that can engage the human mind. If men would contemplate the love of Christ, displayed in the cross, their faith would be strengthened to appropriate the merits of his shed blood, and they would be cleansed and saved from sin. (ST 12/30/89)
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48060
03/14/06 07:04 PM
03/14/06 07:04 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
How do you deal with Rom 1:18, then, for it identifies "the wrath of God against...all unrighteousness"?
God hates sin. If you look at Romans 1:18-25 it identifies what God's wrath is, which is His "giving up" those who have rebelled against Him to the results of their choices. This merits a thread of its own, if you are interested in pursuing this topic.
Now just bear in mind that you differ here with the SDA Church's position, so I don't need to enunciate my position, so much as to take the church's position as given. On this topic it is accurate.
I think this is both untrue and beside the point. The church does not hold to your view as to what Christ accomplished at the cross. Please correct me if I misrepresent your position, but you believe that Christ's death on the cross accomplished a legal justification for the entire human race. This isn't the official position.
Given that your idea on this issue (on other issues even more so) is so different that the church's official position, I don't know why you would even bring this up.
Also I'm not sure what you have in mind by the SDA Church's position. If you are talking about the Fundamental Beliefs, I agree with all of them, to the best of my knowledge, which is something I don't think you can say.
The first 3 chapters of Romans contrast God's righteousness and holiness, with man's unrighteousness and sin, producing the judgement of God against sin which is accompanied by his wrath against sin. Yet, he loves the sinner. Vol.12 of our Bible Commentary, p.178-180, settles the wrath or no wrath Christian debate in favour of wrath, since the Bible doesn't allow for getting rid of it by Rom 3:25 after its introduction in Rom 1:18.
I asked you to develop an argument. This doesn't seem like an argument to me. Do you think it is? You also didn't attempt to respond to my argument, as far as I can tell.
How you characterize the first three chapters of Romans is fine by me. I think you're missing the main point, but I don't disagree with what you assert up to "His wrath against sin." The first thing I would object to is the word "yet". This word suggests there is some contradiction between what you wrote up to this point and what follows. But there isn't. There's no "yet" in Paul's argument. It's all "because."
I don't know what your referring to regarding Vol. 12 of our Bible Commentary. I don't have it. If you wish to discuss God's wrath, I'd be happy to do so.
Why would you refer to our Bible Commentary in order to establish some question of Scripture? Should I refer to the Bible Commentary to disprove your ideas about the Holy Spirit and Christ's divinity?
Regarding Romans 3:25 it appears to me you completely disregarded what I wrote, which was that controverted portions of Scripture should be settled by uncontroverted portions. There are many ideas as to what Romans 3:25 means. Many, many, many. This is a very popular topic for doctoral dissertations, and many ideas have been suggested. If you are familiar with Luke Timonthy Johnson's work on this, or Robert Hays, I think they both bring out strong arguments as to how Romans 3:18-25 should be interpreted. Mostly I agree with Robert Wieland's interpretation, which is not an exegetically based interpretation, but one which I believe is fundamentally sound.
At any rate, controverted texts should be settled by uncontroverted ones. I asked you to produce some argument, based on uncontroverted texts, to substantiate your view. You haven't attempted to do this. You have reasserted your viewpoint, and appealed to sources of authority you yourself don't even recognize when the viewpoints of these sources don't agree with yours in other areas.
Please develop an argument along the lines of mine. That is, outline your points, and offer some reason as to why they point applies, with supporting Scripture. If you wish to use Rom. 3:18-25 in your argument, please us some uncontroverted Scripture to establish your interpretation, or I have no reason to prefer your interpretation to Luke Timothy Johnson, or Robert Hays (who do offer arguments and uncontroverted Scripture for their interpretations) or that of anyone else.
I hope the tone of this response is not too sharp. It's an unfortunate trait of internet conversations that prose comes across stronger than a face to face conversation would, where one has the advantages of tone of voice and body language. I appreciate your responses and contributions. This is a very important area to understand, and I'm glad to be able to try to reason this out with you.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48061
03/15/06 01:10 AM
03/15/06 01:10 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Sure, let's keep this simple. You object to Jesus suffering the wrath of God against sin when he died on Golgotha - or would that be wrath...against sinners(?), but you don't object to Jesus dying the sinner's death due under the law of God as a result of sinning? Tom originally posted quote:
Here's my argument:
a)Because of sin, man began to view God in a way He is not. Man became estranged from God. (Gen 3)
b)God so loved the world He gave His Son that we might look at live. By beholding the cross, we are brought back to God. (John 3:14-16;1 Pet. 3:18)
c)The cross reconciles us, and not only us, but the entire universe by revealing the character of God, thus winning the Great Controversy. (Col 1:14-20)
d)One can find many verses which speak of the cross revealing the love of God, and bringing us into harmony with God. (some that come immediately to mind are John 3:14-16; Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 2:22-24). However one can find no verses which present Christ's death as providing God a legal right to forgive us. The closest one can come is by misinterpreting Rom. 3:18-25. However, this is a controverted passage.
Your basic argument's only flaw is that it's but half the story of redemption.
What happened to the ransom payment by Christ for all sinners??! Now, the fact that we agree the world was corporately justified by Christ's death shows that the cross established God's right to justify sinners and be just. Rom 4:25 says that Christ's death and resurrection give God the right listed in Rom 5:19 to justify and make us righteous based on Christ's acceptable sacrifice.
When Adam & Eve sinned, a sacrifice of atonement for them was necessary, and the Messiah was promised to provide such (Gen 3). Obviously the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), and equally clearly the sin offering enabled forgiveness by faith in the promised Messiah (Heb 9:22). Inasmuch as the law of God was transgressed (1 Jn 3:4), reconciliation was only possible with the penalty due for that transgression being carried out (Rom 8:3b,4) - in us on Christ's body: forgiveness is at the price of the life of the Son of God, not just at the display of agape (1 Cor 6:20).
That's it for now.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
