|
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 (dedication, daylily, TheophilusOne, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,493
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48062
03/16/06 03:51 AM
03/16/06 03:51 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Did you see my response three posts above this last one you just now posted?
TE - I don't see how anyone who knows God at all could not know that this is true.
MM – So, do you agree with me that God is not sorry that the unsaved sinners receive their reward in the lake of fire because they are “worthy”?
TE - It looks like you've the cart before the horse here.
MM – I disagree. The blood and righteousness of Jesus is what makes pardon possible.
TE - Do you really mean to suggest that God only thought of pardoning us because Jesus offered His blood on our behalf?
MM – Without the blood and righteousness of Jesus pardon was not an option. Without the shedding of blood there is no pardon.
TE - The fact is that sin causes pain, suffering, misery and death. There's nothing God can do about this.
MM – God said, In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Were it not for the plan of salvation the human race would have ended with the instant death of our first parents. No offspring would have been born to experience pain, suffering, sickness, disease, etc. These things are a part of our reality because God grants us probationary time. It is we who assume the consequences of sinning are evil. In truth, they are controlled by God for our good. They remind us that God loves us, and that He is in control of the outcome of the great controversy.
TE - 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.
MM – Amen!
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48063
03/15/06 04:23 PM
03/15/06 04:23 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Thanks for the response. I liked the argument you developed (not in the sense of agreeing with it, but I liked the form of it, which facilitates our dialog).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? No, I don't object to either. I object to the idea that Jesus' suffering was for the purpose of obtaining the legal right for God to forgive us, or for the purpose of solving some legal problem, or for appeasing God's wrath.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??! Christ died on the cross.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. God's right to justify sinners was never an issue.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. No it doesn't. It says quote:
5Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
This says nothing about giving God any rights.
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.
Romans 8:3b, 4 doesn't say anything about a penalty. It says:
quote:
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
There's nothing in here about a penalty.
Here's how I understand the verses you quoted:
a.When Adam & Eve sinned, a sacrifice of atonement was needed, as per Gen. 3. Why? The following SOP quote explains why:
quote:
(M)an 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)
b.The wages of sin is death. This means the same thing as saying "the soul that sins shall die." Or, sin results in death. Or as EGW refers to it (death): "the inevitable result of sin."
c.The forgivenss enabled is entirely on our end. God forgave us immediately. That's what got the plan of salvation going. If God had not forgiven Adam, the human race would have perished then and there. It was because God forgave us that He gave His Son. We are the ones who need Christ to be forgiven. God does not need Christ to forgive. There's no statement in either Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy which says this (that God needs Christ in order to forgive us).
d.Reconciliation is only possible when the love of God is seen. It is the love of God which reconciles us.
e.The price of the life of the Son of God was needed because it was only the revelation of truth that could reconcile us. This truth also secures the unfallen universe. God didn't need the price to be paid. We did.
What I see happening is that you are filtering certain Scriptures according to the paradigm you have. Of course, we all do that. The question is if Scripture really support our paradigm. I can produce texts which support every statement I make. OTOH some statements do not have the Scriptures saying what you are saying they say. For example, Rom. 4:25 says nothing about giving God a legal right; Romans 3:3, 4 says nothing about a penalty. These are things you are reading into the texts.
I suggest you read Waggoner's articles on Romans. (I'm suggesting this because I think you have an appreciation for his writings). Here's what he says regarding Romans 3:25
quote:
A Propitiation. A propitiation is a sacrifice. The statement then is simply that Christ is set forth to be a sacrifice for the remission of our sins. "Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:26. Of course the idea of a propitiation or sacrifice is that there is wrath to be appeased. But take particular notice that it is we who require the sacrifice, and not God. He provides the sacrifice. The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible.(emphasis mine)
Waggoner is right!
I'd also suggest you look at his comments in the other sections of Romans you are quoting as well.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48064
03/16/06 01:42 AM
03/16/06 01:42 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
quote:
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?
No, I don't object to either. I object to the idea that Jesus' suffering was for the purpose of obtaining the legal right for God to forgive us, or for the purpose of solving some legal problem, or for appeasing God's wrath.
No, you do object to the first scenario - Jesus suffering God's wrath, as well as the legal problem, but not the second scenario. quote:
What happened to the ransom payment by Christ for all sinners??!
Christ died on the cross.
Okay, what was the ransom payment for? quote:
c.The forgivenss enabled is entirely on our end. God forgave us immediately. That's what got the plan of salvation going. If God had not forgiven Adam, the human race would have perished then and there. It was because God forgave us that He gave His Son. We are the ones who need Christ to be forgiven. God does not need Christ to forgive. There's no statement in either Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy which says this (that God needs Christ in order to forgive us).
Heb 9:22 sums up the sacrificial purpose: no remission or forgiveness without shedding of blood - giving of a pure life, the promised Lamb of God. Because you have failed to realise the legal basis of salvation - starting with forgiveness/pardon, your focus on reconciliation merely by realising the truth of agape appears to be the moral influence theory, by definition.
Now, do you have the cart before the horse, or a cart but no horse?
So, you don't link the legal context & meaning of the word "justification", which happens to us, with a legal purpose in Christ's obedience to the law, in life and in death? Yes, educating our spiritual minds with agape's truth is vital to living faith (i.e. sancification), but how are our minds spiritually awakened or justified without Christ's crucifixion of our sinful minds legally enabling justification, i.e. pardon? - our justification is excluded if Jesus did not fulfil the just requirements of the law by his death and resurrection (Rom 4:25) - dying our death & establishing merit for our pardon.
Jesus emptying the cup of the wrath of God against our sin on our behalf - the results of sin indeed (yes, you only agree with the 'death of sin'), wasn't the requirement of God's law for believing sinners to be forgiven the guilt of the alienation of sin we suffer? You don't recognise the negative demands of God's law: the just and lawful execution of sin's results before alienation's guilt (which we bear partially) can be forgiven in the name of the Substitute?
On re-examining Rom 3:24-26, those verses are clarity inspired, and no need for other texts to confirm this, or several atonement theories to arise from them. With guilt established for all sinners under the law (v.19), justification is only by the righteousness of Jesus through faith in his blood, which was offered as our propitiation (v.24,25a): true, we are atoned for; no-one here ever intimated that God needed atoning for - he does the atoning. The middle of v.25 is crystal clear. quote:
...to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,...
As Hebrews 9:22 states equally succinctly, Christ's life given for our life is the basis or declaration on which remission of sins is achieved. v.26 reiterates remission based on Christ's death, as the lawful or just permission for God to forgive or remit our sins, which is the basic legal nature of justification (Rom 5:18,19).
Forgiveness of guilt is only possible after the death due the sinning which incurred that guilt has been suffered (Rom 8:3b; 1 Jn 1:7b,9 - these "works" (3b) are listed in Rom 8:29,30) - hence the usefulness (speaking reverently) of a substitutionary death for all sin (Rom 8:3b), instead of forgiveness being inapplicable, ie. without a recipient, once the sinner has died forever, should there be no saviour...
Death from sin is eternal separation from God at the day of judgement ("condemnation" in Jn 3:18,19)- fully suffering God's wrath (the cup which Christ drained between Gethsemane and expiring on the cross) before being mercifully annihilated, but without Christ that would have happened to Adam and Eve 'in a day'.
Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, because the plan of salvation was established before this world was created (Heb 4:3c; 9:26a)): God forgave Adam because of the contract already made with his divine Son (Adam also being a "son of God"!) to redeem fallen mankind (Heb 4:3; 9:16 - that divine contract enables inheritance of the promise to Abraham). God is forgiving by nature, but without the shedding of the blood of a substitutionary Saviour there can be no forgiveness (Heb 9:22).
That is such a basic legal issue, it doesn't need repeating throughout Scripture, until someone refuses to accept it, ever since the 12th century AD. So, we break God's law, and death is the result, but probationary time is facilitated by a promised Saviour, whose death bears the penalty of 'our' sinning; without that substitutionary death, we remain bound by the law to face eternal death (Rom 7:2 - husband is sinful nature, its law being sin's fate, thus the wife being condemned to death unless released from that fate), rather instantly, though. Deprived of a Saviour - hypthetically, of course, neither forgiveness nor eternal life is available, since God can only gift either in the name of Jesus (Jn 14:13).
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48065
03/16/06 01:57 AM
03/16/06 01:57 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
No, you do object to the first scenario - Jesus suffering God's wrath, as well as the legal problem, but not the second scenario.
It seems a tad pretentious to me for you to decide what I object to. I should know what I do and don't object to. As I said, I do not object to the idea that Jesus suffered God's wrath.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48066
03/16/06 02:57 AM
03/16/06 02:57 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Okay, what was the ransom payment for? quote:
When Adam fell, God's attributes of holiness, justice, and truth could not be changed. And yet He desired to reconcile man with heaven's immutable law. Yearning to save fallen humanity, He sought to devise a plan whereby the sinner need not perish, but might gain everlasting life. Christ, the Eternal Truth, the Light, the Life, the Sovereign of heaven, offered to clothe His divinity with humanity, and give His life as a ransom for the fallen race. God in His wisdom accepted the plan proposed by Christ for the accomplishment of His purpose. (ST 5/14/02)
Christ gave His life a ransom for the accomplishment of God's purpose. What was God's purpose? To reconcile us. Here's how Peter puts it:
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)
The ransom was paid to "bring us to God." Perhaps Jesus put it best when He said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The ransom was paid that we might have eternal life by believing in Christ.
quote: c.The forgivenss enabled is entirely on our end. God forgave us immediately. That's what got the plan of salvation going. If God had not forgiven Adam, the human race would have perished then and there. It was because God forgave us that He gave His Son. We are the ones who need Christ to be forgiven. God does not need Christ to forgive. There's no statement in either Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy which says this (that God needs Christ in order to forgive us).
Heb 9:22 sums up the sacrificial purpose: no remission or forgiveness without shedding of blood - giving of a pure life, the promised Lamb of God. Because you have failed to realise the legal basis of salvation - starting with forgiveness/pardon, your focus on reconciliation merely by realising the truth of agape appears to be the moral influence theory, by definition.
No, this is a mischaracterization. The moral influence theory has to do with our being saved by imitating Christ's example. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. There's a big difference here.
It's true that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, but the question is why not? You are once again assuming your conclusion. There's nothing in Hebrews 9, or Hebrews anywhere, that says it was to solve a legal problem.
God offered to forgive Satan without the shedding of blood; solely on the basis of repentance and submission. This point is worth careful consideration. Why would God forgive Satan without blood, but not man? Understanding the answer to this question will help to understand the purpose of the cross.
Now, do you have the cart before the horse, or a cart but no horse?
So, you don't link the legal context & meaning of the word "justification", which happens to us, with a legal purpose in Christ's obedience to the law, in life and in death? Yes, educating our spiritual minds with agape's truth is vital to living faith (i.e. sancification),
Pardon my interupting here. I thought from previous statements of yours that you were familiar with Jones and Waggoner's writings, and agreed with what they taught. It is justification by faith that's at issue here. I could quote reams upon reams of Jones and Waggoner to establish this point, especially Waggoner. Here's one example:
quote:
The life of Christ is divine power. In the time of temptation the victory is won beforehand. When Christ is abiding in us, we are justified by faith, and we have His life abiding in us. But in that life He gained the victory over all sin, so the victory is ours before the temptation comes. When Satan comes with his temptation, he has no power, for we have the life of Christ, and that in us wards him off every time. Oh, the glory of the thought, that there is life in Christ, and that we may have it!
The just shall live by faith, because Christ lives in them. "I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me." Gal. 2:20. ("Life in Christ" Present Truth)
but how are our minds spiritually awakened or justified without Christ's crucifixion of our sinful minds legally enabling justification, i.e. pardon? - our justification is excluded if Jesus did not fulfil the just requirements of the law by his death and resurrection (Rom 4:25) - dying our death & establishing merit for our pardon.
Romans 4:25 doesn't say anything about Christ establishing merit for our pardon. You're reading that in there. There's no reference to "merit" or "legal rights" or anything of the sort. The verse says He was delivered for offenses and raised for our justification.
Jesus emptying the cup of the wrath of God against our sin on our behalf - the results of sin indeed (yes, you only agree with the 'death of sin'), wasn't the requirement of God's law for believing sinners to be forgiven the guilt of the alienation of sin we suffer? You don't recognise the negative demands of God's law: the just and lawful execution of sin's results before alienation's guilt (which we bear partially) can be forgiven in the name of the Substitute?
I don't understand you questions here.
On re-examining Rom 3:24-26, those verses are clarity inspired, and no need for other texts to confirm this, or several atonement theories to arise from them. With guilt established for all sinners under the law (v.19), justification is only by the righteousness of Jesus through faith in his blood, which was offered as our propitiation (v.24,25a): true, we are atoned for; no-one here ever intimated that God needed atoning for - he does the atoning. The middle of v.25 is crystal clear.
I'll quote Waggoner again:
quote:
A Propitiation. A propitiation is a sacrifice. The statement then is simply that Christ is set forth to be a sacrifice for the remission of our sins. "Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:26. Of course the idea of a propitiation or sacrifice is that there is wrath to be appeased. But take particular notice that it is we who require the sacrifice, and not God. He provides the sacrifice. The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible.
It is the height of absurdity to say that God is so angry with men that he will not forgive them unless something is provided to appease his wrath, and that therefore he himself offers the gift to himself, by which he is appeased. "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death." Col. 1:21, 22. (Waggoner on Romans, chapter 3)
I agree with Waggoner. The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible.
quote:...to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,...
As Hebrews 9:22 states equally succinctly, Christ's life given for our life is the basis or declaration on which remission of sins is achieved. v.26 reiterates remission based on Christ's death, as the lawful or just permission for God to forgive or remit our sins, which is the basic legal nature of justification (Rom 5:18,19).
There's not a word in any of these verses about there being a legal issue involved. Nothing about permission. Once again, Waggoner's point stands.
Forgiveness of guilt is only possible after the death due the sinning which incurred that guilt has been suffered
This is true.
(Rom 8:3b; 1 Jn 1:7b,9 - these "works" (3b) are listed in Rom 8:29,30) - hence the usefulness (speaking reverently) of a substitutionary death for all sin (Rom 8:3b), instead of forgiveness being inapplicable, ie. without a recipient, once the sinner has died forever, should there be no saviour...
Not really sure what you're saying here, but it looks OK.
Death from sin is eternal separation from God at the day of judgement ("condemnation" in Jn 3:18,19)- fully suffering God's wrath (the cup which Christ drained between Gethsemane and expiring on the cross) before being mercifully annihilated, but without Christ that would have happened to Adam and Eve 'in a day'.
Agreed.
Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, because the plan of salvation was established before this world was created (Heb 4:3c; 9:26a)): God forgave Adam because of the contract already made with his divine Son (Adam also being a "son of God"!) to redeem fallen mankind (Heb 4:3; 9:16 - that divine contract enables inheritance of the promise to Abraham).
God did not forgive Adam because of an already made contract made with Christ. God forgave Adam because it is His nature to forgive. God is love. Because God is love, and it is His nature to forgive, He made the contract with His Son that should man fall, Christ would redeem man.
God is forgiving by nature, but without the shedding of the blood of a substitutionary Saviour there can be no forgiveness (Heb 9:22).
True, but why is blood necessary? That's the question. No one is denying that blood was necessary. But penal substition or satisfaction is not the only theory as to why. Simply assuming your conclusion and reasserting it does not constitute any sort of proof or argument.
You are assuming that the blood was necessary to solve a legal problem. But there's no hint anywhere in the vicinity of Heb 9:22 that there is a legal issue involved.
That is such a basic legal issue, it doesn't need repeating throughout Scripture, until someone refuses to accept it, ever since the 12th century AD.
Are you stating here that not until the 12th century did anyone suggest there was a legal issue? If that's what you're saying, I agree (except that it was more like the 11th century). Before that, the legal theory was unknown, which includes the New Testament authors.
Consider that Jesus never even hinted that there was a legal reason for His death. Paul's teachings were based on Jesus' teachings, as well as on the Old Testament Scriptures. There's no hint in the Old Testament that there's a legal issue which the sacrifice for sins accomplished. The Hebrews didn't have this idea.
So, we break God's law, and death is the result, but probationary time is facilitated by a promised Saviour, whose death bears the penalty of 'our' sinning; without that substitutionary death, we remain bound by the law to face eternal death (Rom 7:2 - husband is sinful nature, its law being sin's fate, thus the wife being condemned to death unless released from that fate), rather instantly, though. Deprived of a Saviour - hypthetically, of course, neither forgiveness nor eternal life is available, since God can only gift either in the name of Jesus (Jn 14:13).
This looks right.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48067
03/16/06 03:00 AM
03/16/06 03:00 AM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
quote:
Okay, what was the ransom payment for?
So, we break God's law, and death is the result, but probationary time is facilitated by a promised Saviour, … (Rom 7:2 - husband is sinful nature, its law being sin's fate, thus the wife being condemned to death unless released from that fate), rather instantly, though. Deprived of a Saviour - hypothetically, of course, neither forgiveness nor eternal life is available, since God can only gift either in the name of Jesus (Jn 14:13).
So where is the short coming?
The Father and the son are willing and ready to give and have given, in order that we would be ransomed from the “husband”; the husband that cannot accept forgiveness nor be set free from condemnation, but abides in the fear of death.
- Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Since there is no other love that can save from such a husband but the love of God; God could not give us anything less to save us from sin.
Yes, sin is so mean and depriving of life; condemning in all its ways. Nothing less then the very blood of Christ needed to be shed abroad on us, to flow through us, so that we could be dead to sin and alive unto God.. The blood of Christ is his life which he gave unto us that we might live
- 1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
But not all see and understand this; instead they use Christ to save themselves from God.
- 2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48068
03/16/06 03:08 AM
03/16/06 03:08 AM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
- 2Co 1:9 But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead:
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48069
03/16/06 03:46 AM
03/16/06 03:46 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
But not all see and understand this (that Christ gave Himself for our sins); instead they use Christ to save themselves from God.
Bingo!
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48070
03/16/06 05:02 AM
03/16/06 05:02 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Originally posted by Tom quote:
Romans 4:25 doesn't say anything about Christ establishing merit for our pardon. You're reading that in there. There's no reference to "merit" or "legal rights" or anything of the sort. The verse says He was delivered for offenses and raised for our justification.
No, justification, established by the resurrection, is our justification in Christ since he possesses the merits of salvation by definition, and our justification is a legal solution or matter, after all. Forgiveness involves replacing guilt with righteousness, and that righteousness was only available with Jesus' resurrection (Rom 3:25). I'm not reading anything into the text. quote:
God did not forgive Adam because of an already made contract made with Christ. God forgave Adam because it is His nature to forgive. God is love. Because God is love, and it is His nature to forgive, He made the contract with His Son that should man fall, Christ would redeem man.
quote:
God is forgiving by nature, but without the shedding of the blood of a substitutionary Saviour there can be no forgiveness (Heb 9:22).
True, but why is blood necessary? That's the question. No one is denying that blood was necessary. But penal substition or satisfaction is not the only theory as to why. Simply assuming your conclusion and reasserting it does not constitute any sort of proof or argument.
Isn't sinning a crime??! Crimes carry punishment, and only a lawful substitute (hence the truth of Christ's humanity is critical to the ethical, lawful gospel) can save us 'criminals' from that punishment.
quote:
quote:
...to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,...
As Hebrews 9:22 states equally succinctly, Christ's life given for our life is the basis or declaration on which remission of sins is achieved. v.26 reiterates remission based on Christ's death, as the lawful or just permission for God to forgive or remit our sins, which is the basic legal nature of justification (Rom 5:18,19).
There's not a word in any of these verses about there being a legal issue involved. Nothing about permission. Once again, Waggoner's point stands.
No, Waggoner's point is a straw man, here, completely irrelevant: he gives to propitiation the incorrect understanding of those who mistake God's wrath to exclude God's love, and brushes with the same stroke the understanding that God's mercy and wrath are harmonious in his holiness, as believed by those who find the Saviour's propitiatory suffering of God's wrath in Scripture....You just don't think so. Your loss.
quote:
You are assuming that the blood was necessary to solve a legal problem. But there's no hint anywhere in the vicinity of Heb 9:22 that there is a legal issue involved.
What do you understand a covenant and a testament to be (v.15,16? I'm having to force myself to be diplomatic here... ![[Eek!]](images/icons/shocked.gif) ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif) Are they not documents with legal content & issues for us and God, and applied throughout Heb 9?
quote:
quote:
That is such a basic legal issue, it doesn't need repeating throughout Scripture, until someone refuses to accept it, ever since the 12th century AD.
Are you stating here that not until the 12th century did anyone suggest there was a legal issue? If that's what you're saying, I agree (except that it was more like the 11th century). Before that, the legal theory was unknown, which includes the New Testament authors.
Consider that Jesus never even hinted that there was a legal reason for His death. Paul's teachings were based on Jesus' teachings, as well as on the Old Testament Scriptures. There's no hint in the Old Testament that there's a legal issue which the sacrifice for sins accomplished. The Hebrews didn't have this idea.
No: nice try, but you can't turn my words completely around like that.
The history of atonement teachings had an error from the church fathers until the 11th century, with the ransom theory involving the devil being paid the ransom - he supposedly having a ransom demand for death's release...whereas it was God's justice which had a legal demand of death, and the ransom was payable to God! The 11th century corrected that mistake with that satisfaction of justice, and the 12th century, moral influence theory, started ignoring God's law's justice altogether, hence your disagreement with our church for her recognition of divine justice in the atonement.
This fits in here nicely, I think quote:
quote:
Jesus emptying the cup of the wrath of God against our sin on our behalf - the results of sin indeed (yes, you only agree with the 'death of sin'), wasn't the requirement of God's law for believing sinners to be forgiven the guilt of the alienation of sin we suffer? You don't recognise the negative demands of God's law: the just and lawful execution of sin's results before alienation's guilt (which we bear partially) can be forgiven in the name of the Substitute?
I don't understand you questions here.
The positive requirement of the law for Jesus to be Saviour of the world was his meritorious righteousness; the negative requirement was everything to do with his faithful death: suffering God's wrath against sin and his humanity possessing our justification in the resurrection. That justification in him enables pardon for us who believe, supplying the righteousness which pardons.
quote:
Okay, what was the ransom payment for?
quote:
[quote]When Adam fell, God's attributes of holiness, justice, and truth could not be changed. And yet He desired to reconcile man with heaven's immutable law. Yearning to save fallen humanity, He sought to devise a plan whereby the sinner need not perish, but might gain everlasting life. Christ, the Eternal Truth, the Light, the Life, the Sovereign of heaven, offered to clothe His divinity with humanity, and give His life as a ransom for the fallen race. God in His wisdom accepted the plan proposed by Christ for the accomplishment of His purpose. (ST 5/14/02)
Christ gave His life a ransom for the accomplishment of God's purpose. What was God's purpose? To reconcile us. Here's how Peter puts it
This deserved to come last, since you only quote one side of Sister White and thereby consistently misrepresent her, sadly; so, do you share her stance on the Bible?
You're reason for not being a moral influence theorist, on the other 'wrath of God, etc.' thread is that those theorists only imitate Christ(?): they also reject the satisfaction theory of the atonement! - and discards Christ's death as a necessity for salvation (here you illogically differ), retaining only appreciation of agape as shown in the cross for the means of reconciliation with and restoration to God. They don't really deal with experiential justification by faith at all, and dwell almost solely on appreciating agape in the cross.
Thus you hold to almost all that they do...and
Here's the other side of Sister White: note how she deals with the issue Waggoner overcooked, about God's wrath: quote:
"But this great sacrifice was not made in order to induce God to love those whom he otherwise hated; it was not made to produce a love that was not in existence; but it was made as a manifestation of the love that was already in God's heart. . . . We are not to entertain the idea that God loves us because Christ has died for us. . . . The death of Christ was expedient in order that mercy might reach us with its full pardoning power, and at the same time that justice might be satisfied in the righteous substitute." (ST May 30, 1895).
You've received a copy already of Wieland's comments on this excerpt. (He expressly "eschewed" the moral influence theory.) I'll paraphrase his statement, for others here who didn't get a copy: the sentence with "that mercy might reach us with its pardoning power", if kept and the rest of the sentence omitted would constitute the moral influence theory. Wieland's emphasis on "mercy" and agape should never imply that he denies the "justice" clause of that sentence: he combines God's justice with God's mercy, mentioning both and linking them, as Sister White did here. You do deny the second clause, while he clearly starts with it and incorporates it into the "mercy" clause.
I hope we can come to an agreement on this issue, but there's not been much success with that yet.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48071
03/16/06 05:05 AM
03/16/06 05:05 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
John, on first reading, I agree with your comments at the top of this page.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
