Ha ha! I got what I typed in my clipboard before the dreaded "the form you are submitting is no longer valid" which would have nuked it. Yes!

Mark, thank you for your comments. I'm pretty sure I provided the references to the quotes I provided on the thread, but I'm happy to repeat them. The quotes were from chapters 6 and 8 of his book "Shades of Grace." The particular section which you quoted in on page 79.

There are two books of his I would recommend which deal with these concepts. The first is "See With New Eyes" and the second is "Shades of Grace." Most of the ideas I've been presenting are in harmony with what he presents. There's only one difference, possibly, that I'm aware of, between his views and mine, which is he may see God's actions in Sodom and Gemorrah, the flood, and similar incidents a bit differently than I do. I've not discussed this with him, so I'm not 100% sure. Other than that, I'm sure we're in complete harmony.

Once one perceives that there is an organic relationship between sin and death, as Ty puts it, everything else follows from that. How one views the atonement and the destruction of the wicked, follows directly on whether one perceives the connection of sin and death, or not. If one doesn't, then Christ's death on the cross, and the destruction of the wicked, must be arbitrary actions on the part of God, as Ty explains.

Quote:

---

Substitutionary atonement is one of the doctrines that although buried under many superstitions survived in Catholicism. It was rescued by Luther and others from the debris and is foundational to justification and righteousness by faith, the great principles of the Reformation and of the ancient faith of our Fathers. Should we be surprised that it is coming under attack? Yes and no. Yes that the attack is coming from within the most reformed of the Protestant churches. No because it is foundational to genuine faith. The devil knows its strength. He therefore hates this doctrine.

---

You're presenting the traditional viewpoint of the history of the Atonement, but it's not the only one. Gustav Aulen, in his book "Christus Victor," makes a compelling case that the view you are repeating here is historically inaccurate.

What actually happened is the non-penal view is the one that was held by early Christianity, and the penal view was developed by Rome. The Eastern Orthodox church, for example, (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm) does not have this view. This is because it spun off from Rome before this idea, developed by Anselm in the late 11th century, just after the split earlier in the century.

Aulen argues that while Luther used legal language, what Luther meant by the language he used was different than what the Romanists meant, that Luther's ideas were much closer to what Aulen calls the Classical View (others have called it "Christus Victor narrative")

So what happened is not that Luther's ideas of the atonement were attacked, but they were ignored, and disregarded in favor of Rome's view.

IMO a HUGE shortcoming of the penal theory is that it was never taught by Jesus. If it were true it would mean that perhaps the most important thing for us to know was never mentioned by Jesus Christ! I think that's impossible. He was the greatest teacher the world has ever known. It's hard to believe He would have overlooked this.

I think what Jesus taught us regarding the purpose of His death was not only correct (I'm sure we agree on this), but *complete*. That's an important point to consider, IMO.

The penal view is supported from Scripture mostly by a couple of statements of Paul, where it is read into his statements; probably the most frequently mentioned ones being Rom. 3:21-26, Heb. 9:22-25, Rom. 5:9. However none of these Scriptures state or even imply anything different than what Jesus taught, or Peter's reason for Christ's death:

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. (1 Pet. 3:18)"

People routinely read into Paul's statements ideas which aren't there, ideas of Anselm, but not ideas of Jesus.

A lot of circular reasoning goes into this. One has a certain idea of the atonement, reads the Scriptural statements with that idea in mind, and sees the idea that they already had in mind before reading the text! I know, because I did the same thing for many years. It's hard to break through this. I think Ty has done an excellent job trying to slice through the fog. If one will read his arguments with an open mind, I think one will see that they make sense.

MM, I think we've gotten on a bit of a tangent. I'd like to get back to the point I was making before, regarding the guilt of our sin crushing us. Here's the statement from the Spirit of Prophecy:

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 looks to me from what you wrote that you were for some reason isolating this statement to Adam and Eve. But it should be clear, from even a brief perusal of the statement, that she did not have Adam and Eve in mind at all.

It should also be clear that this statement cannot be limited to believers, but must include unbelievers as well, since the guilt of their sin would crush them just as much as the guilt of a believer's sins.

So from this statement it is evident that sin would indeed kill us without any arbitrary action on God's part to bring about our demise. God is actively protecting us, and everyone, from the effects of sin, by bearing our guilt in the person of Jesus Christ.

I'd like to return to another statement of hers, which you originally quoted:

After God has done all that could be done to save men, if they still show by their lives that they slight offered mercy, death will be their portion; and it will be a dreadful death, for they will have to feel the agony that Christ felt upon the cross. {FLB 338.6}

Is it not clear that she is pointing to an equivalence in the death of Christ and the death of the wicked?

TE: It looks to me from what you wrote that you were for some reason isolating this statement to Adam and Eve.

MM: The reason I mentioned Adam and Eve in the context of crushing guilt is because if God hadn’t instituted the plan of salvation the human race would not have survived the instant death of our first parents. Crushing guilt isn’t the only thing that causes the wicked agony in the lake of fire, the flames themselves contribute to it as well.

TE: Is it not clear that she is pointing to an equivalence in the death of Christ and the death of the wicked?

MM: Yes, but there is more to the punishment and destruction of the wicked than what Jesus experienced on the cross. Unlike Jesus, the wicked will also suffer in the flames of the lake of fire.

Thomas, here is a typical explanation of the scapegoat by Sister White, a description that most people consider heretical. Please note how she writes about the "sins" of the saved and what happens to them.

PP 357, 358
The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement; so in the type the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent, but it rested in the sanctuary until the Day of Atonement. {PP 357.5}

In the great day of final award, the dead are to be "judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Revelation 20:12. Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven. Thus the sanctuary will be freed, or cleansed, from the record of sin. In the type, this great work of atonement, or blotting out of sins, was represented by the services of the Day of Atonement--the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary, which was accomplished by the removal, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, of the sins by which it had been polluted. {PP 357.6}

As in the final atonement the sins of the truly penitent are to be blotted from the records of heaven, no more to be remembered or come into mind, so in the type they were borne away into the wilderness, forever separated from the congregation. {PP 358.1}

Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment. Christ's work for the redemption of men and the purification of the universe from sin will be closed by the removal of sin from the heavenly sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon Satan, who will bear the final penalty. So in the typical service, the yearly round of ministration closed with the purification of the sanctuary, and the confessing of the sins on the head of the scapegoat. {PP 358.2}

Thus in the ministration of the tabernacle, and of the temple that afterward took its place, the people were taught each day the great truths relative to Christ's death and ministration, and once each year their minds were carried forward to the closing events of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, the final purification of the universe from sin and sinners. {PP 358.3}

Here is another description:

GC 422
It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty. The scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, never to come again into the congregation of Israel. So will Satan be forever banished from the presence of God and His people, and he will be blotted from existence in the final destruction of sin and sinners. {GC 422.2}

GC 485, 486
In the typical service the high priest, having made the atonement for Israel, came forth and blessed the congregation. So Christ, at the close of His work as mediator, will appear, "without sin unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:28), to bless His waiting people with eternal life. As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited" (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. Thus the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment in the final eradication of sin and the deliverance of all who have been willing to renounce evil. {GC 485.3}

1.If the quilt of our sin would crush us unless Christ were bearing it, it follows that sin in and of itself would kill us, and there is no need for God to impose anything on top of this in order to kill us. It sounds to me like you are agreeing with this statement (although you think there is more to it than this).

What I wnat to make clear is the principle that there is no *necessity* for God to do anything in addition to ceasing to bear our sin in the person of Jesus Christ in order to kill us. According to your view, God chooses to do so, but even if He didn't, the wicked would all die. Do you agree with this?

2.MM, you're just accepting your own presuppositions without questioning whether they make sense. There's more than one way to interpret the texts you are looking at, but you are fixed on one way. When arguments are brought to your attention which illustrate bring out shortcomings of the interpretation, rather than reconsidering the interpretation to see if an alternative might make more sense, you throw away that possibility, and just stick with what you already had.

For example, you agree with me that the Spirit of Prophecy is making an equivalence between the death of the wicked and the death of Christ. But then you backtrack saying that the death of the wicked is different than the death of Christ because of the flames God uses to torture the wicked with. But this is the very question under consideration! If the SOP is establishing a principle of equivalence between the death of the wicked and the death of Christ, then your view of the death of the wicked comes into question.

Even using your view of penal substitution, your view doesn't make sense, because if Christ died to pay the legal price of the debt of sin, and the legal price of the debt of sin is the execution of the sinner in flames of fire, then that's the price Christ would have had to pay. That is, Christ would have had to have been tortured in literal flames of fire, just like the wicked will be, or there is no legal basis upon which to forgive the repentent wicked person.

Mike

I thought you said that Ellens writings on the subject would be like biblestudies? I see two bible quotes in the text you posted and in both cases it appears that they are there to support the thesis rather than the thesis supporting the bible quotes. Where are the bible study parts you mentioned?

/Thomas

Leviticus 16 is the main basis, but in order to understand the Day of Atonement in more depth, the various sacrificial offerings should be studied to see if our view of the scapegoat is sound. I've reviewed the different offerings, especially the ones that have the closest parallels, for example, where two birds are offered, and the offering of the murder heifer and the offering of the red heifer and the goat sin offerings. I've concluded our position on this is sound. We are not saying that we receive any merit because the sins of the redeemed are placed on Satan. The types only describe what the final disposition of sin is and illustrate for us and foretell that they are ultimately reflected back on Satan their originator. The evangelicals do not understand our position if they think we believe the final disposition of sin has some part in our salvation. All merit is found only in the blood of Christ.

Please folks, we are creating a record here and for the sake of those who come later, within reason, stay on the listed topic. Thanks in advance for co-operating.