|
Forums118
Topics9,234
Posts196,242
Members1,327
| |
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
5 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, Daryl, 2 invisible),
2,402
guests, and 15
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Is The Character of God Being Misrepresented?
#48255
03/14/06 02:27 PM
03/14/06 02:27 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
That propitiation involves appeasing God's wrath is commonly accepted in all conservative Christian circles. I'm not assuming it's true so much as taking this acceptance as given. The Bible is clear that there is divine wrath against sin. How it occurs is another topic, but it's there, while pagan sacrifice excludes appeasing divine wrath. The heavenly/heathen divine differences making mistaken understandings of propitiation are about wrath being involved in the appeasement, as well as who is reconciled. You are leaving out the appeasement part of heavenly propitiation, mistaking it for the pagan version. quote:
This is an illustration of how God propitiated us with the gift of His Son. We were the ones who were unreasonably upset; we were the ones who needed to be reconciled. God's feelings towards us have never changed. He so loved us He gave us His Son.
Your personal experience is touching, but you allude to reconciliation: propitiation has two parts, and you constantly deny that. Your denial doesn't change the fact that propitiation appeases as well as reconciles.
|
|
|
Re: Is The Character of God Being Misrepresented?
#48256
03/14/06 04:06 PM
03/14/06 04:06 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
The opinion that Jesus destroys unsaved sinners by ceasing to hold in check the inevitable results of sinning is, in my opinion, false and dangerous. Why would it be dangerous? If sin really is dangerous, and God warns us from the dangers of pursuing it, and we insist anyway, and God allows us to have our way in choosing death, how is it dangerous for God to allow the consequences to occur of what He said would happen? Isn't this exactly what DA 764 is saying? quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.
At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)
Either way, though, Jesus is directly responsible for destroying them.
This is what the whole Great Controversy is about. God says Satan is directly responsible. Satan says God is. We as free moral agents get to choose who we will believe.
Whether He causes or allows it to happen doesn't change the fact that He is responsible.
Satan is responsible as the author of sin, suffering and death. Those who choose to align themselves with Satan in his rebellion share responsibility. God is totally 100% innocent.
quote:
The fall of our first parents, with all the woe that has resulted, he charges upon the Creator, leading men to look upon God as the author of sin, and suffering, and death. Jesus was to unveil this deception. (DA 24)
The idea, however, that He is too loving to cause the death of anyone is foreign to truth.
Your way of phrasing this leads me to believe you have not ascertained the nature of issue involved. It's not a question as whether or not God is loving enough for something to occur or not occur, but whether sin really is dangerous. Does sin have destructive power? That's really the question that needs to be considered.
The idea that it contradicts His character to cause, rather than merely allow, the punishment and destruction of unsaved sinners is false and dangerous. Why? It contradicts the truth. It ascribes to something else the authority of God.
If sin is dangerous and causes death, and God warns us this is the case, and what God says would happen actaully does happen, how does this ascribe to something else the authority of God? God's authority is not threatened by truth.
To allow something else to receive the credit that alone belongs to God is to jeopardize the security of the universe. If Jesus is not the one responsible for defeating sin and death, if something else wins the great controversy, then we are no better off than at the beginning of the great controversy.
I don't understand your motivation regarding stating that Jesus be the only one responsible for defeating sin and death. There's no question about this. The cross defeated sin and death by revealing the truth. This is how the Great Controversy was won. Jesus gets the credit because He is the One who died on the cross. God gets credit too for giving His Son for our fallen race.
I also don't understand the comment about "if someone else wins the Great Controversy." The Great Controversy has already been won. It was won at the cross. Who else to do you think could win, and how could they win?
|
|
|
Re: Is The Character of God Being Misrepresented?
#48257
03/14/06 04:28 PM
03/14/06 04:28 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
That propitiation involves appeasing God's wrath is commonly accepted in all conservative Christian circles. Even if this were true, which it isn't, it wouldn't prove anything. The Eastern Orthodox church, for example, does not hold to this view. Unless you don't want to consider them conservative Christians.
Truth is not established by numbers. You believe that Christ corporately justified the human race, don't you? That Christ's sacrifice corporately justifies the human race is not accepted in conservative Christian circles. Should this idea be rejected for this reason?
I'm not assuming it's true so much as taking this acceptance as given. I'm not understanding the distinction here. It seems to me you are assuming it's true, and then stating that assumption as if it were proof, or had some sort of weight.The Bible is clear that there is divine wrath against sin. I agree with this. God hates sin.How it occurs is another topic, but it's there, while pagan sacrifice excludes appeasing divine wrath. The heavenly/heathen divine differences making mistaken understandings of propitiation are about wrath being involved in the appeasement, as well as who is reconciled. You are leaving out the appeasement part of heavenly propitiation, mistaking it for the pagan version. Where in Scripture is presented the appeasement part of heavenly propitiation?Tom:This is an illustration of how God propitiated us with the gift of His Son. We were the ones who were unreasonably upset; we were the ones who needed to be reconciled. God's feelings towards us have never changed. He so loved us He gave us His Son. Colin: Your personal experience is touching, but you allude to reconciliation: propitiation has two parts, and you constantly deny that. Your denial doesn't change the fact that propitiation appeases as well as reconciles. I mentioned the two parts. There was me and my girlfriend. She was reconciled (or appeased, if you prefer that word) by my coming down to visit her. Similarly, we are reconciled by the gift of God.
I mentioned Wieland twice, as one who shares my view of "propitiation" in Rom. 3:25 and "wrath" in Rom. 5:9. I was guessing you would be one who favors Wieland's presentation of these issues. Was I wrong about this?
quote:
Since the announcement to the serpent in Eden, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed" (Gen. 3:15), Satan had known that he did not hold absolute sway over the world. There was seen in men the working of a power that withstood his dominion. With intense interest he watched the sacrifices offered by Adam and his sons. In these ceremonies he discerned a symbol of communion between earth and heaven. He set himself to intercept this communion. He misrepresented God, and misinterpreted the rites that pointed to the Saviour. Men were led to fear God as one who delighted in their destruction. The sacrifices that should have revealed His love were offered only to appease His wrath. Satan excited the evil passions of men, in order to fasten his rule upon them. (DA 115)
It seems to me this quote brings out exactly the issues we are talking about. The sacrifice is for the purpose of revealing God's love, not appeasing His wrath.
|
|
|
Re: Is The Character of God Being Misrepresented?
#48258
03/14/06 05:04 PM
03/14/06 05:04 PM
|
Active Member 2012
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,826
E. Oregon, USA
|
|
The two parts to propitiation are its acions, not the parties to the action, or do you just disagree with that definition? That's the definition of our church, and, given the divine wrath against sin, appeasing that wrath is necessary to save us from sin's penalty!
Is it having divine wrath turned away from us to himself that you object to, or that Christ's death was a suffering of the actual death due us for sinning? Hope you've spotted the difference, there...
The Christian objection to God having wrath against sinners is mistaking wrath against sin for wrath against sinners. Then there's the nature of that wrath, and, given God's mercy to the sinner in providing the sacrifice of atonement for the sinner, the wrath is contrasted as clear as day for not being vindictive or arbitrary, but a matter of principle of holiness.
The Devil wants to misrepresent God's wrath as his own wrath - typical, and DA 115 cannot be saying something else, since Rom 1-3 is clear that Christ's ransom payment was also to appease God's holy wrath against unrighteousness. That quote of yours must also find its meaning from like statements, since it is ambiguous without further explanation.
|
|
|
Re: Is The Character of God Being Misrepresented?
#48259
03/14/06 08:24 PM
03/14/06 08:24 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
The two parts to propitiation are its acions, not the parties to the action, or do you just disagree with that definition? That's the definition of our church, and, given the divine wrath against sin, appeasing that wrath is necessary to save us from sin's penalty! It would be helpful if you defined what you meant, so I wouldn't have to guess. If you already have, I apologize for having missed it, but what are the "two parts"? One part must be making an offering to appease wrath. What would the other part be? The reconciliation which results from that? Something else?
The penalty of sin is death. What needs to be done to save us from the penalty is for us to give up sin, which will kill us. The following quote describes this well: quote:
In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them....The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.(DA 108)
God's wrath is His turning over the sinner to the results of his choice, which is death. The problem is not that something needs to be done to God to convince or enable Him to set aside or redirect His anger, but that our hearts and minds are alienated from Him. We need to be brought into harmony with Him and the principles of His government. But we are selfish, and our natures are not in tune with God's ways. So God gave His Son in order to reveal His love to us, lead us to repentance, to effect our conversion. The goodness of God leads us to repentance, which is a change of mind, a change of heart. The cross accomplishes this. It does nothing to God but everything for us.
Note in the DA quote that men are destroyed because they identify themselves with sin. If they would give up sin, they would not be destroyed. Also note that it is not an arbitrary act on God's part that leads to their destruction, but simply God being God. This is seen in that it is the same thing which gives life to the righteous which destroys the wicked, which is "the light of the glory of God" which is simply the truth about His character (light=truth; God's glory is His character).
Is it having divine wrath turned away from us to himself that you object to, or that Christ's death was a suffering of the actual death due us for sinning? Hope you've spotted the difference, there...
I agree that Christ death was a suffering of the actual death due to us for sinning. I disagree that Christ had to die in order for God to have the legal right to forgive us. I disagree that the fundamental problem (or that it was a problem at all) was a legal one. The problem is one of alienated hearts and minds. This is why the Scripture so often emphasizes reconciliation. It doesn't emphasize at all legal problems.
The Christian objection to God having wrath against sinners is mistaking wrath against sin for wrath against sinners.
Then there's the nature of that wrath, and, given God's mercy to the sinner in providing the sacrifice of atonement for the sinner, the wrath is contrasted as clear as day for not being vindictive or arbitrary, but a matter of principle of holiness.
The Devil wants to misrepresent God's wrath as his own wrath - typical, and DA 115 cannot be saying something else, since Rom 1-3 is clear that Christ's ransom payment was also to appease God's holy wrath against unrighteousness.
Paul's point is the Christ revealed God's character, and that revealtion brings us into harmony with God. It's the same point that Ellen White makes, that Peter makes, that Paul makes in his other epistles, that John makes. It the whole story of Scripture.
You are simply repeating your own assertion over and over again. Where in Jesus' teachings can one find the view you are suggesting? Don't you think something as important as the reason for Christ's death is something He would have spoken about? Where does He suggest that His Father needed a legal right to forgive us? Where does He suggest that His Father's wrath against sin needed to be appeased, and that was the reason He was dying?
If one can only find support for a point of view in a portion of Scripture which is interpreted in dozens of different ways, that's a weak foundation.
Paul never speaks of "appeasing" God's wrath. I think he would cringe if he heard anyone suggesting that was his idea.
That quote of yours must also find its meaning from like statements, since it is ambiguous without further explanation.
You're saying the DA 115 text is ambiguous? This one?
quote:
(Satan) set himself to intercept this communion. He misrepresented God, and misinterpreted the rites that pointed to the Saviour. Men were led to fear God as one who delighted in their destruction. The sacrifices that should have revealed His love were offered only to appease His wrath. (DA 115)
What is it that's ambiguous? It seems clear to me the text is saying that it was Satan's plan to get men to offer sacrifices to appease God's wrath rather than see the sacrifices, as they should have been, as that which reveals God's love. This isn't clear?
|
|
|
Re: Is The Character of God Being Misrepresented?
#48260
03/16/06 03:05 AM
03/16/06 03:05 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
TE - Why would it be dangerous? If sin really is dangerous, and God warns us from the dangers of pursuing it, and we insist anyway, and God allows us to have our way in choosing death, how is it dangerous for God to allow the consequences to occur of what He said would happen? Isn't this exactly what DA 764 is saying?
MM – If God is unnaturally holding back the natural consequences of our sins it tells me He is responsible for the outcome of our choices. That is, if this idea is true, whether or not something happens when we sin depends on whether or not God causes or allows it to happen.
For example, did God unnaturally hold back the earthquake that eventually swallowed up Achan and his family? Or, did the quake occur on time as a result of Achan’s sin? That is, was there a natural time delay related to his specific sin? Or, did God cause the quake that killed them?
TE - Satan is responsible as the author of sin, suffering and death. Those who choose to align themselves with Satan in his rebellion share responsibility. God is totally 100% innocent.
MM – Again, are you suggesting that Satan is free to attack us any time he chooses? Or, does God decide when and what Satan can do? For example, was Satan free to attack Job according to his will and whim? Or, did God establish the rules and boundaries?
TE - I don't understand your motivation regarding stating that Jesus be the only one responsible for defeating sin and death. There's no question about this. The cross defeated sin and death by revealing the truth. This is how the Great Controversy was won. Jesus gets the credit because He is the One who died on the cross. God gets credit too for giving His Son for our fallen race.
MM – Jesus did not defeat sin and death on the cross as evidenced by the fact both are still alive and well today.
TE - I also don't understand the comment about "if someone else wins the Great Controversy." The Great Controversy has already been won. It was won at the cross. Who else to do you think could win, and how could they win?
MM – Jesus has not yet won the GC as evidenced by the fact it is still very much going on all around us today.
|
|
|
Re: Is The Character of God Being Misrepresented?
#48261
03/15/06 04:42 PM
03/15/06 04:42 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
TE - Why would it be dangerous? If sin really is dangerous, and God warns us from the dangers of pursuing it, and we insist anyway, and God allows us to have our way in choosing death, how is it dangerous for God to allow the consequences to occur of what He said would happen? Isn't this exactly what DA 764 is saying? MM – If God is unnaturally holding back the natural consequences of our sins it tells me He is responsible for the outcome of our choices. I don't understand either the premise or conclusion here. First of all the word "unnaturally" has no place here. It should be "supernaturally" not "unnaturally." What would God do that would be "natural"? Everything God does is supernatural. So the word "unnaturally" should be deleted.
Ok, so does God prevent us from immediately suffering the consequences of our sins? Certainly. If He didn't, we would be dead, because the inevitable result of sin is death. quote:
We should not try to lessen our guilt by excusing sin. We must accept God's estimate of sin, and that is heavy indeed. Calvary alone can reveal the terrible enormity of sin. If we had to bear our own guilt, it would crush us. (MB 116)
It is only by not recognizing the enormity of sin that we can be blind to what God is doing to protect us from it.
That is, if this idea is true, whether or not something happens when we sin depends on whether or not God causes or allows it to happen.
No convolution of logic can establish that God is responsible for our choices. We are. If we choose sin, we will die.
quote:
In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them.... The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. (DA 106)
TE - Satan is responsible as the author of sin, suffering and death. Those who choose to align themselves with Satan in his rebellion share responsibility. God is totally 100% innocent.
MM – Again, are you suggesting that Satan is free to attack us any time he chooses?
I'm suggesting just what I wrote. Satan alone is the author of sin, suffering and death.
Or, does God decide when and what Satan can do? For example, was Satan free to attack Job according to his will and whim? Or, did God establish the rules and boundaries?
That God protects us from Satan is not in question.
TE - I don't understand your motivation regarding stating that Jesus be the only one responsible for defeating sin and death. There's no question about this. The cross defeated sin and death by revealing the truth. This is how the Great Controversy was won. Jesus gets the credit because He is the One who died on the cross. God gets credit too for giving His Son for our fallen race.
MM – Jesus did not defeat sin and death on the cross as evidenced by the fact both are still alive and well today.
This statement shocked me. Let's start a thread on it.
TE - I also don't understand the comment about "if someone else wins the Great Controversy." The Great Controversy has already been won. It was won at the cross. Who else to do you think could win, and how could they win?
MM – Jesus has not yet won the GC as evidenced by the fact it is still very much going on all around us today.
quote:
Christ did not yield up His life till He had accomplished the work which He came to do, and with His parting breath He exclaimed, "It is finished." John 19:30. The battle had been won. His right hand and His holy arm had gotten Him the victory. As a Conqueror He planted His banner on the eternal heights. Was there not joy among the angels? All heaven triumphed in the Saviour's victory. Satan was defeated, and knew that his kingdom was lost.(DA 758; emphasis mine)
|
|
|
Re: Is The Character of God Being Misrepresented?
#48262
03/16/06 02:42 PM
03/16/06 02:42 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
Ok, so does God prevent us from immediately suffering the consequences of our sins? Certainly. If He didn't, we would be dead, because the inevitable result of sin is death.
In my mind, God is “supernaturally” modifying the promised consequences of sinning, namely, instant death – not 900 years of suffering and sadness and gradual decay. The consequences of sinning, as we it, was not part of the original promise - Thou shalt surely die. Do you agree? I would like to know if you agree with these insights. They are important to my understanding of sin and death and suffering.
1SM 230
Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the Son of God. {1SM 230.1}
The fact Eve did not die the very instant she sinned, exactly as God promised, strongly suggests that death is not the natural cause and consequence results of sinning, at least not in the same way lopping off a head causes someone to die immediately. The relationship between sinning and death is different than lopping off heads and death. Do you agree?
The plan of salvation was not implemented until after Adam sinned, therefore, it is not the reason why our first parents did not die immediately. Some other reason accounts for why they didn’t die instantly. Otherwise, Eve would not have survived long enough to tempt Adam later on. Do you agree?
But I do not believe death is the natural result consequences of sinning based on the fact God was constrained to prevent us from eating the fruit of the tree of life. Why? Because we would live forever in a sinful state. “And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.” (Gen 3:22) Obviously, there is more to death than merely sinning.
TM 133, 134
Adam and Eve and their posterity lost their right to the tree of life because of their disobedience. "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of Us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." Adam and Eve transgressed the law of God. This made it necessary for them to be driven from Eden and be separated from the tree of life, to eat of which after their transgression would perpetuate sin. "So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the Garden of Eden cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Man was dependent upon the tree of life for immortality, and the Lord took these precautions lest men should eat of that tree "and live forever"--become immortal sinners. {TM 133.3}
If, as you seem to believe, death is the natural consequences of sinning, and not imposed or inflicted by God, how could sinners live for ever?
|
|
|
Re: Is The Character of God Being Misrepresented?
#48263
03/17/06 03:11 AM
03/17/06 03:11 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
MM – That is, if this idea is true, whether or not something happens when we sin depends on whether or not God causes or allows it to happen.
TE - No convolution of logic can establish that God is responsible for our choices. We are. If we choose sin, we will die.
MM- Convoluted logic? Please, Tom, be kind and Christlike and avoid harsh words and insulting comments. We are two brothers in Christ trying to study the truth together, right? So please, refrain from insulting me. Thank you.
God does not force us to think, speak or behave in one way or another. We are free to choose to abide in Jesus. Otherwise, we abide in sin and death by default. We do not have to choose to sin, we only have to neglect to choose to abide in Jesus and we will sin instinctively. There is no neutrality.
Yes, we manage the choices, but Jesus manages the consequences. Just because a sad and sorrowful soul chooses to jump off a cliff doesn’t mean they will die. We do not always succumb to the laws of nature when we sin. Whether or not we die or suffer or whatever when we sin is totally dependent upon how Jesus chooses to manage the outcome of our choices.
TE - Satan alone is the author of sin, suffering and death.
MM – Satan did not create sin, suffering, or death. God is the creator, not the Devil. Satan cannot create anything. He can only distort what God has created. Lucifer is the first free moral agent to sin. That’s all. He did not create sin. Sinners suffer when they sin because God modified the death penalty. The suffering they experience is managed by Jesus. Sometimes He causes it directly, and other times allows evil angel to cause it to happen.
MM – Jesus did not defeat sin and death on the cross as evidenced by the fact both are still alive and well today.
TE - This statement shocked me. Let's start a thread on it.
MM – Why? Do you doubt that sin and death are still happening?
|
|
|
Re: Is The Character of God Being Misrepresented?
#48264
03/17/06 03:19 AM
03/17/06 03:19 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
TE - I also don't understand the comment about "if someone else wins the Great Controversy." The Great Controversy has already been won. It was won at the cross. Who else to do you think could win, and how could they win? MM – Jesus has not yet won the GC as evidenced by the fact it is still very much going on all around us today. MM – It is not a question of whether or not Jesus will win the GC. It has been known from eternity that Jesus would win the GC. No question about it. So, I should qualify what I posted by adding – The GC is not yet over. Whether or not Jesus will win it is not in question. He knows the end from the beginning, so He can assure us that affliction shall not rise up a second time. quote:
Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve. {DA 761.3}
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
