|
Forums118
Topics9,217
Posts195,975
Members1,324
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48072
03/17/06 04:38 AM
03/17/06 04:38 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
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!
I have never met such a person in my entire life. I have never met anyone who believes Jesus saves us from God. Please quote one person who believes such a thing. Thank you.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48073
03/16/06 05:32 PM
03/16/06 05:32 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
I took out some things to keep the length down. I tried to keep the salient points going, but if I took out something you thought important, or didn't answer a question you wanted me to, please repost.
Also I sent you a PM.Colin: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. This doesn't agree with Waggoner's theology. As he pointed out, Christ has always been a present savior. The righteousness that Abraham received was real righteousness, present rightouesness. That righteousness was always present. It was not created at the cross, or at the resurrection. It was revealed there, but not created there. The righteousness is in Christ. Abraham received the righteousness when he received Christ. quote:
The sin is against God, and if he is willing to forgive it, he has the right to do so. No unbeliever would deny the right of a man to overlook a trespass against him. But God does not simply overlook the trespass; he gives his life as a forfeit. Thus he upholds the majesty of the law, and is just in declaring that man righteous who was before a sinner. Sin is remitted sent away from the sinner, because sin and righteousness can not exist together, and God puts his own righteous life into the believer. (Waggoner on Romans, ch. 3)
Do you see that this is not a legal matter that Waggoner is describing? Sin is remitted by God's putting His own righteous life into the believer. This happened as much before the cross as after.
Tom: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.
Colin: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.
It's true that crimes carry punishment, and in our realm these punishments must of necessity be arbitrary. But it God's government, this is not so. (This is also Waggoner, by the way; Glad Tidings, chapter 3). The punishment for sin is death. The fact that men live, even though they are sinners, is evidence of the efficacy of God's grace.
Your statement makes the tacit assumption that the punishment that results from sin is an arbitrary, or imposed, one, and not a real one. But sin really and truly does result in death. There's no arbitrary requirement that sin must be punished, but rather it's a law (or principle or rule) that sin results in death. The death that results from sin is the punishment.
The only way to save the sinner from death is to save him from sin, and the only way to do that was through Christ's life, death and resurrection.
Old Colin:...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).
Tom: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.
Colin: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 write Waggoner's point is a straw man, completely irrelevant. This must be referring to Waggoner's point that nowhere does Scripture speak of propotiation having to do with giving God the right to forgive us, or of it being for the purpose of appeasing God's wrath. However, this is exactly what you are asserting. Waggoner is asserting the opposite. How is this not relevant?
I'll stop here, and ask you to rewrite the rest, as the sentence you wrote is very difficult to parse.
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.
Colin: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!] [Roll Eyes] Are they not documents with legal content & issues for us and God, and applied throughout Heb 9?
Have you read "The Glad Tidings"? I think it's page 70 in Wieland's edition. Waggoner talks about what the covenant is. Around page 100 he goes into more detail on the subject. I agree with Waggoner's explanation.
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.
Colin:No: nice try, but you can't turn my words completely around like that.
Our conversation would be much more pleasant for me if you would refrain from sarcasm and accusation. You will notice I have treated you and your ideas with respect. I have not impugned your motive. I believe you are sincere in your beliefs, and following God to the best of your ability.
I'm not trying to turn your words. Your prose is very difficult to understand. I'm doing my best. I asked you a question for clarification. I asked, "Are you stating? ..." Then I continued "IF that's what you're saying ..."
Everything I'm writing here indicates I'm unclear as to what you're trying to say. I'm not trying to twist or turn your words -- just understand what you're saying.
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.
I disagree. You've skipped the Christus Victor theory. This theory existed in the first centuries, before Romanism took over. The theory you are suggesting as truth was invented in the height of the papacy, the "midnight of the world" as Ellen White puts it. It is based on appeasing God's wrath, an idea which was rejected by Waggoner and other SDA colleagues of his. It's a theory entrenched in Roman Catholic theology.
Take a look at http://www.sharktacos.com/God/cross_intro.shtml. This has a nice discussion of the Christus Victor theory.
quote:Okay, what was the ransom payment for?
Tom:Christ gave His life a ransom for the accomplishment of God's purpose. What was God's purpose? To reconcile us.
Colin: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?
Colin, there's no need to make statements like "consistently misrepresent her, sadly." They don't add anything to the discussion.
You asked me a question, which is what was the need for the ransom. My answer was that it is for the purpose of reconciling us. I understand this to be the consistent teaching of Scripture, as well as the Spirit of Prophecy. For example:
quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. (ST 1/20/90)
If the whole purpose of Christ's mission was to set us right through the revelation of God, and Christ's death was a part of His mission, then it follows that the purpose of Christ's death was to set us right through the revelation of God. This is in perfect harmony with Scripture.
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!
This isn't relevant. The fact that the Moral Influence Theory may have something right doesn't mean the whole thing is right. I'm surprised you would write this. Surely you see the fallacy in your logic here. I can elaborate if you wish.
- 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
If you want to pigeon-hole the ideas I've been sharing, they are closer to Christus Victor than the Moral Influence theory. If you're familiar with Gustaf Aulen's book, that describes the Christus Victor idea well. I also gave you a web link to look at.
However, these authors are not aware of the Great Controversy theme. That's how I would characterize it myself. I think Fifield presented the idea very well, and quoted several paragraphs from him. If you read, and understand, what he wrote, you will see that it is very different than the Moral Influence theory.
This tactic of wanting to label me according to some theory you hold in low esteem is not a helpful tactic. It is as unhelpful as my labeling you an Arianist would be (which I've never done). Instead of labeling, it would be better to consider the issues involved.
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).
There's no "other side" here. It says what I've been saying. "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..." That's been my point! There's nothing in here about wrath.
Colin:I hope we can come to an agreement on this issue, but there's not been much success with that yet.
I hope so too. It may be possible, but it will require patience, and an improvement in tone. There's no reason to get angry or frustrated here. Don't you enjoy talking about these things? I do. I love trying understand more clearly the science of salvation, and appreciate the opportunity to dialog with you. I'm happy to continue as long as you wish, but ask that the tone be kept pleasant.
We have different paradigms. I understand your paradigm very well Colin, because I have had it in the past (or something close to it; of course, no two people think exactly alike). However, you've never had my paradigm. You don't understand it. It will take time to get there.
I'll give an anology. I've never had your paradigm regarding the Holy Spirit/Christ's pre-existence. So I've been very careful to not leap to conclusions as to what you think, and have asked many questions for clarification. I'm open to invesitigate truth. If I get to a certain point that I can't agree with (e.g. the Holy Spirit is capable of independent thought and has an independent will) I want to make sure that I'm disagreeing with something you actually believe.
It's not easy to understand the paradigm of someone else when you've never had that paradigm.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48074
03/16/06 11:50 PM
03/16/06 11:50 PM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
quote:
MM said: I have never met such a person in my entire life. I have never met anyone who believes Jesus saves us from God. Please quote one person who believes such a thing. Thank you.
The one who holds the concept that Jesus died to appease God’s wrath and to enable God to forgive is just such a person.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48075
03/17/06 01:02 AM
03/17/06 01:02 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by John Boskovic:
quote:
MM said: I have never met such a person in my entire life. I have never met anyone who believes Jesus saves us from God. Please quote one person who believes such a thing. Thank you.
The one who holds the concept that Jesus died to appease God’s wrath and to enable God to forgive is just such a person.
I shan't say, "If you say so," but rather that that's not what I said: I perceive you're referring to my posts.
Saved from the condemnation of the law of God, which human nature is inextricably tied to, never involved being saved from God. God's mercy has its meaning because of God's just requirements: that both agape and divine wrath feature in salvation is expressed with "justice and mercy kissed" at the cross.
Thanks for highlighting the topic of your bemusement.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48076
03/17/06 02:35 AM
03/17/06 02:35 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
I shan't say, "If you say so," but rather that that's not what I said: I perceive you're referring to my posts.
This wasn't about you, Colin. John B. was just making observations. I can say this with conviction because I've been here long enough to know this is what John was doing.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48077
03/17/06 02:54 AM
03/17/06 02:54 AM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
Granted you've not attached any theological labels to me other than very tentatively re 1888, but I was tentative, too, actually. You disown the moral influence theory, but since you look so similar to a well known general position, how many who've studied Adventism's present truth should be aware of a rather if not completely unknown but similar theory to the one you distance yourself from? ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) Yes, we are principlly at loggerheads on what the atoning sacrifice involved, so, while your basic point is becoming clear to me and mine is nearly clear to you, there is after all little room for manoeuvre. The point in the EGW quote I posted wasn't for reiterating the obvious point found in Jn 3:16 about God's love expressed in grace rather than being created by grace. You keep repeating this point as if to persuade, while all around you never disagreed: you thought I had lost the point, let alone missing it? The second half of the EGW paragraph has "that justice might be satisfied in the righteous substitute", as the expedition of mercy (same sentence). That is 'satisfaction of justice', or do you think she didn't support the satisfaction definition of atonement? You've said on the thread of 'God's misrepresentation' that you disagree with that atonement, or do you only disagree that that satisfaction didn't involve the Substitute suffering wrath? I've read both views, from you. First you disagreed that Jesus' suffering included God's wrath against sin, then you actually agreed that that "wrath" is true (plainly) and that jesus suffered it, but that Jesus didn't attain any legal permissions for God to forgive us. So, you do agree with the wrath issue, but not the legal permission bit? As for Waggoner, it is indeed error that God's love had to be bought by appeasing his wrath. That the Adventist church doesn't hold this view is printed in our increasingly detailed explanations of our beliefs, including the wrath issue: agape and wrath are harmoniously rooted in God's holiness. Death following from sin - as natural consequence - isn't the legal aspect of Christ's work that I was stating as fundamental. The legal part of Christ's death was satisfaction of the law in giving a substitutionary life for the sinner's life (2 Cor 5:14b). Now, the result of sin isn't merely natural but also itself a point of law: it is legally obligated, as Rom 5 generally shows, positively and negatively. We are justified by faith (v.1), through the righteousness of the one (v.19), and are saved from wrath through him (v.9). The law condemns all sinners in Adam (v.12, 18) and the righteous act of the Second Adam acquits all those who are in Adam (v.18): a legal proceeding by which death was replaced by life, according to law. You wrote quote:
The only way to save the sinner from death is to save him from sin, and the only way to do that was through Christ's life, death and resurrection.
but the apparent meaning of this is that sanctification of faith displaces justification by faith, while of course both belong in the basket. "Save him from sin" sounds like the result of the heavenly sanctuary cleansed - that is our characters rid of sinful traits by cooperating with our great High Priest, and is the perfect finishing of sanctification. Justification by faith in Christ's life, death and resurrection does what?? - since it neither touches our sinful flesh (glorification) nor sinful character traits (sanctification). How is sin conquerable or removable (sanctification) if Jesus didn't save us from death itself to start with, according to your statement above?
That other point you made re Rom 3:25 and the ever present Saviour isn't in dispute. quote:
Colin: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.
This doesn't agree with Waggoner's theology. As he pointed out, Christ has always been a present savior. The righteousness that Abraham received was real righteousness, present rightouesness. That righteousness was always present. It was not created at the cross, or at the resurrection. It was revealed there, but not created there. The righteousness is in Christ. Abraham received the righteousness when he received Christ.
Inasmuch as Rev 13:8 refers to the promise also alluded to in Heb 9:26, also Abraham's righteousness by faith was by believing the promise of God to bless all peoples through him. The righteousness of our salvation was created during Christ's life and perfected by his death, since it is human righteousness. It wasn't divine righteousness gifted to the patriarchs and all saints since then, but that human righteousness wrought out by Christ. The promise of the Saviour in the future didn't involve righteousness already produced, but faith in that promise that it would be.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48078
03/17/06 04:08 AM
03/17/06 04:08 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Granted you've not attached any theological labels to me other than very tentatively re 1888, but I was tentative, too, actually. You disown the moral influence theory, but since you look so similar to a well known general position, how many who've studied Adventism's present truth should be aware of a rather if not completely unknown but similar theory to the one you distance yourself from? My position is not really any more similar to the Moral Influence Theory than yours. For some reason people like to apply the label to denigrate, but most people have no idea what the theory is. The theory is that Christ influences us to behave morally by His example. There's an element of truth to this, but this is not justification by faith. I don't believe this any more than you do.Yes, we are principlly at loggerheads on what the atoning sacrifice involved, so, while your basic point is becoming clear to me and mine is nearly clear to you, there is after all little room for manoeuvre. Your position has always been clear to me. I used to think similarly to you. I went through a paradigm shift when I realized that the familiar phrases I had been using "the just requirements of the law" "pay the penalty of sin" "pay the debt we owed" and so forth without considering what they really meant. One day the meaning dawned on me. They weren't mystical phrases which spoke of some arbitrary requiment of God or God's law, but were speaking of the truth of John 3:16, of 1 Pet. 3:18. By seeing Christ crucified, we are justified by faith; we are brought back to God. It's simple. There's no need for more than this.The second half of the EGW paragraph has "that justice might be satisfied in the righteous substitute", as the expedition of mercy (same sentence). That is 'satisfaction of justice', or do you think she didn't support the satisfaction definition of atonement? No, not in the sense you understand it. Not at all. I searched through her writings and could not find a single instance where she spoke of God's wrath being appeased. I also searched looking for her use of the word "propitiation" and saw that she is in agreement with Waggoner. She does not apply it to God, as if He were the One propitiated, but to us. For example: quote:
For thirty-three years the Only Begotten of God dwelt among the children of men. He represented the Father, the One full of goodness, mercy, and truth, the One touched ever by human woe. During these years Christ finished the great work that He came to accomplish. He became the propitiation for the sins of every one who believes on Him.
Justice and mercy were reconciled by Christ's sacrifice. At the cross, Mercy and Truth met together; Righteousness and Peace embraced each other. Through the sacrifice of Christ, Mercy is reaching out, offering to cleanse man from his unrighteousness. Thus is fulfilled the everlasting purpose of God. Man may accept the great gift of redemption, and co-operate with God, his own will being conformed to God's will.
(ST 5/14/02)
Note she says that the propitiation is for all who believe. This makes it clear that it's not something that has to do with God, but with us. If it had to do with God, she would not have said it is for every one who believes in Christ.
Note the next paragraph where she makes the application of what the propitiation accomplishes. It's all about what it does for man. She sounds like Waggoner. She's making the same points.
Something I miss about not being at Andrews is the inability to search things out there. In thinking about these things I became interested in when the idea that God's wrath is propitiated first entered into Adventist thought. Ellen White didn't teach it. Waggoner denied it. We've seen Fifield's statements on it. I'm sure Jones didn't teach it. Nor Prescott. It would be interesting to find out when it first came in the chruch. Perhaps it was the same time the idea that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam came in. Much or our modern teachings have come in due to outside influences. Perhaps this is another one.
OTOH perhaps there were some earlier Adventists who had this idea; perhaps some who resisted the 1888 message. I don't know. I wish I had the opportunity to find out. Maybe one day I will.
You've said on the thread of 'God's misrepresentation' that you disagree with that atonement, or do you only disagree that that satisfaction didn't involve the Substitute suffering wrath?
Are you talking about the Moral Influence Theory here? I don't know what you're asking.
I've read both views, from you. First you disagreed that Jesus' suffering included God's wrath against sin,
I don't disagree with this. I doubt I said what you are suggesting I said. If I did, it was by mistake. You'd have to quote something from me to convince me that I said this, and if you did, I'd have to take it back. But I think you're mistaken here.
then you actually agreed that that "wrath" is true (plainly) and that jesus suffered it, but that Jesus didn't attain any legal permissions for God to forgive us.
You're making it sound like I changed my mind or changed positions or something. But I know what I think. I've been consistent the whole time.
So, you do agree with the wrath issue, but not the legal permission bit?
Yes. However, I'm quite certain my understanding of God's wrath is different than yours. You may recall I've offered to discuss this with you several times.
As for Waggoner, it is indeed error that God's love had to be bought by appeasing his wrath.
That's not what Waggoner said. This is what he said:
quote:
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.
He didn't say God's love had to be bought by appeasing God's love, but that the idea that God's wrath had to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible. He is right.
That the Adventist church doesn't hold this view is printed in our increasingly detailed explanations of our beliefs, including the wrath issue: agape and wrath are harmoniously rooted in God's holiness.
You have to be clearer as to what you are referring to. I read our fundamental beliefs, and don't have a problem with what they say. If you're referring to something else, you'll have to say what it is for me to comment. If you're referring to the BRI, there's a lot they say that you don't agree with, probably more than me, so I don't know why you'd suggest them as a source. Actually I doubt there's any source you could suggest of Adventist doctrine which would have you more in harmony with it than me. Not that this proves anything, because it doesn't, but I find it odd that you would bring this up. It has no weight. It reminds me of this:
quote:
Therefore, no matter by whom anybody first hears the truth, he is to receive it as coming direct from heaven. The Holy Spirit enables those who wish to do God's will to tell what is truth as soon as they see or hear it, and they accept it, not on the authority of the man through whom it came to them, but on the authority of the God of truth. We may be as sure of the truth which we hold and teach as the apostle Paul was. But whenever anybody cites the name of some highly-esteemed preacher or doctor of divinity, to justify his belief, or to give it more weight with some person whom he would convince, you may be sure that he himself does not know the truth of what he professes. It may be the truth, but he does not know for himself that it is true. It is everybody's privilege to know the truth (John 8:31,32); and when one holds a truth directly from God, ten thousand times ten thousand great names in its favor do not add a feather's weight to its authority; nor is his confidence in the least shaken if every great man on earth should oppose it. It is a grand thing to be built on the Rock. (The Glad Tidings)
In closing, I appreciate the tone of your last post. Thank you. I hope we can continue discussing things amicably.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48079
03/17/06 04:28 AM
03/17/06 04:28 AM
|
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,196
Ontario
|
|
quote:
I shan't say, "If you say so," but rather that that's not what I said: I perceive you're referring to my posts.
Sorry Colin, Tom is right; I did not have you on my mind when writing that.
But now, since you brought up a point, let’s look at it closer.
quote:
Saved from the condemnation of the law of God, which human nature is inextricably tied to, never involved being saved from God.
God’s law never condemned anyone. In fact it could not. It was never given for that. If the law would have condemned anything, it would have condemned sin and not the sinner; but it could not do that either.
- Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
But I wonder if you are referring to sin’s condemnation, for sin uses the law of God unlawfully, to condemn and kill.
- Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
You see, sin creates an idea of “justice” that condemns and kills. This is why God said in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Because sin uses the law to work wrath, condemnation, and death. Sin uses the law to create an idea of “justice” that condemns and kills. God’s “justice” on the other hand, relieves the oppressed and sets the captives free. God’s justice is kissed with mercy. With sinful man, justice works contrary to mercy. With God justice is in harmony with mercy. They love each other.
quote:
God's mercy has its meaning because of God's just requirements: that both agape and divine wrath feature in salvation is expressed with "justice and mercy kissed" at the cross.
That indeed would be saving us from God, or from a God that was! But it is not so, you see God did not need to save us from his own just requirements or his own wrath; he needed to save us from sin’s unjust requirements.
God needed to save us from “sin’s justice” to His justice which is kissed with mercy. Or differently said God needed to save us from our righteousness to his righteousness; not because our righteousness was “not good enough”, but because our righteousness is deadly; full of condemnation and wrath. Why; because sin took occasion by the law to work death in me by that which is good. So by sin, man’s judgment was turned to condemnation. From this our judgment (which is condemnation) Christ came to save us from.
This is why Christ said:
- Mat 7:1,2 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
So that which fallen nature is tied to is the condemnation of sin which uses the law of God to work wrath.
God’s mercy has its meaning because it is life; the opposite of fallen man’s justice which is wrath and death. His mercy redeems us to God’s justice which is life. God does not want us to remain in sin’s justice because we will be judged by our own judgment. Therefore he offers us his judgment, his justice; his righteousness; his mercy; that we might be filled with his spirit; and have the mind of Christ. All of which are life; eternal life.
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48080
03/17/06 06:08 PM
03/17/06 06:08 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by John Boskovic:
quote:
MM said: I have never met such a person in my entire life. I have never met anyone who believes Jesus saves us from God. Please quote one person who believes such a thing. Thank you.
The one who holds the concept that Jesus died to appease God’s wrath and to enable God to forgive is just such a person.
John, who believes this distorted idea? I have never met anyone who believes such a thing. I have met lots of people who believe that the death of Jesus releases us from having to obey the law. And, I have met people who believe Jesus saved everyone with eternal life in heaven. But I have never met anyone who believes what you posted. Have you? If so, can you quote them?
|
|
|
Re: Are we saved by a demonstration of God's pent up wrath?
#48081
03/17/06 06:18 PM
03/17/06 06:18 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Sin is the transgression of the law. It is not a person or a god that can condemn sinners. Without the law sin would cease to be sin. Sin is only a sin because the law forbids sinning. But the law is not a person or a god. The law is a transcript of God's character, therefore, it is God who condemns sinning, not the law. Sinning is not person. Therefore, it is God who condemns sinners. It also God who pardons and saves sinners, not the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
