Most reasonably intelligent people believe the Bible teaches:
a)The soul is immortal, and there is an eternal hell.
b)Sabbath was done away with, and we should observe Sunday to honor Christ's resurrection
c)There is nothing wrong with eating pork, lobster etc.

Tom, I believe the reason for the death of Jesus can be viewed in more than one way, because the Bible uses various metaphors to explain it.

It uses the term "propitiation," which would be the aspect addressed in this question -- i.e. the substitutionary aspect.

Jesus is also declared to be our great Exemplar. In that case, His death demonstrated the principle of self-denying love that God wants to work out in our lives.

Jesus is also the representative of the character of God to us. Thus He demonstrated self-denying love in the most powerful way -- by dying for us. (The "for" here can be taken in more than one way -- the "instead of us" being only one.) Thus the purpose of His death would be a demonstration of the character of God. It's a demonstration calculated to win our hearts and our devotion.

Some of our well-known preachers and teachers have focused on one or another metaphor almost to the exclusion of others. Graham Maxwell, for instance, focuses on Christ as the Exemplar and the demonstrator of God's self-denying love, avoiding reference to the substitutionary aspect of Christ's death.

But the Bible writers use all these ways to describe the work of Christ.

No one metaphor is complete in itself. One could say that the Law of God demands the death of the sinner, and Christ as the Author of the Law, gives His life instead of ours. That is a substitution that demonstrates the inviolability of the sacredness of the Law of God. It is not a "payment" to anyone.

There's also another way to look at the question: When God created man, He made Him ruler of this planet and gave him the potential for eternal life on the condition of obedience. Man (in the generic sense) chose to believe Satan's lie, rather than God's truth, thus choosing another master -- the originator of sin. It is then that Satan became the "prince of this world," as Christ called him. Satan claimed man as his own, and man needed redemption (the original meaning includes the necessity of buying back through a payment), and Christ paid the price of redemption in order to set man free from slavery to Satan. (By the way, a study of the story of Ruth and Boaz brings out some beautiful truths of redemption.)

Notice that it is impossible to make any one of these metaphors "walk on all fours," so to speak. To do so for any one would lead us into a matching heresy. Human words used by Bible writers to explain the mystery of redemption are not altogether adequate for the divine plan. And I understand that even in eternity we will forever be learning new aspects of this ultimate demonstration of God's infinite love.

Well, Tom, I wasn't just referring to "most reasonably intelligent people" but to such people who would actually read and study the words of the Bible -- as I assumed you might understand.

The immortal-soul teaching entered the Christian church via Platonism. It is not based on a "clar reading" of the relevant texts. (Unfortunately some of our translations include the translator bias.)

And it is easily demonstrable from the biblical text alone that the Sabbath was not "done away with." Support for Sunday sacredness, by contrast, comes from extr-biblical sources.

A second reading of the story of Peter's vision makes clear the point was not that unclean foods were now "clean." It furthermore makes no sense logically -- especially in light of today's scientific knowledge.

Perhaps I should add as well, that it's not possible to persuade anyone of truth of a spiritual nature simply on the basis of argument. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict of truth. Yet we do have a part to play in presenting the truth in the most intelligent and attractive manner.

But what interests me more is your point in opposing my statement on the matter.

What is your position on the question of how truth is determined?

The clear reading of the written words may not be such an easy thing after all. Some people insist that the clear reading of the written words in John 6:37 is chrystal clear evidence of Gods sovereign election of some to believe and others not to believe. How can we know that this is not the clear reading of the word? Could your words fall back on us?

I see Tom had already spelled it out.

(long post warning)

Nice posts, Inga, both of them (I'm speaking specifically of the ones addressed to me). I'll deal in greater detail with the one regarding the purpose of Christ's death and metaphors in a later post, as it will take some time to treat carefully (However, I will share some thoughts here too). Regarding the other post, I was reacting to your post, which hit me as not "quite right." I was trying to figure out what about it me didn't seem right.

I guess there are a couple of points that hit me as not quite right. The first has to do with "words" and the Word. Salvation is about knowing a Person. The words direct us to the Person.

I think Jesus expressed the truth very clearly when He said, "You search the Scriptures, because you think in them you have eternal life, but they are they which testify of Me." You wrote:



First of all, Jesus, in His statement "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life" was not directing anyone to written words at all, but to His words, which were spoken. That some of them were written down is immaterial. *All* of Jesus' words (including the ones He speaks today!) are spirit and life, which was His point.

So your argument that Jesus' statement "brings us back to the written words as an objective standard of truth" is an invalid argument. This doesn't mean that the conclusion you stated is false, by the way. You can have an invalid argument with a true conclusion.

However, that your argument is invalid is a somewhat minor issue. The real issue has to do with the rest of what you wrote. In particular, this question is very interesting:



Here's something from the Spirit of Prophecy:



If you had something like is mind, then the answer is "yes," we can have another god by rejecting the truth, by favoring our "own reality" as you put it. However, we cannot just throw our reality away, can we? It is, after all, our reality, which is to say, the way we perceive things.

To give a specific example, in regards to penal substitution, your reality, the way you perceive things, is that this is a Biblical metaphor. You do not see yourself rejecting the clear written words of Scripture by laying hold of this doctrine, which to me is clearly contrary to everything Jesus ever said or taught. It seems to me that this rejection of the "clear reading of the written words" is quite subjective. I didn't find your response to this point to be very persusive. There are millions of Christians who believe the soul is immortal, and that this is the "clear reading of the written words." It isn't clear to them.

It seems to me that the same reason they believe the soul is immortal is the same reason you believe in penal substitution. Rather than looking at what Scripture actually teaches, arguments which have been heard, given by others, are repeated, as opposed to a candid investigation as to what Scripture actually teaches.

For example, in regards to penal substitution, surely one would expect that somewhere Jesus would have explained the purpose for His death. So where does Jesus, in any way, teach that His death was for enabling God to be able to legally forgive us, or in order to propitiate His wrath? There is no such teaching. Paul is interpreted in such a way as to have him teaching something Jesus did not teach. I don't believe this is the case. I don't believe Paul was teaching anything different than Jesus; indeed, Paul knew the teachings of Christ, and was simply expressing them in his own words.

Ok, so let's get to the question which you most recently posed to me regarding my position on how truth is determined. I think what happens is we all have our own paradigms, and God constantly challenges those paradigms. He is constantly hitting us with new truth, new ideas. It's not so easy for us to know what the truth is, and God doesn't expect it to be so for us. By meditating upon Scripture, thinking about new ideas, and I would say above all considering what the new idea says in regards to God's character, we eventually come to a conclusion regarding the new idea.

I'll give an example. When I was studying to become an Adventist, I believed in an immortal soul. There are many texts in Scripture which apparently teach this. There are also many texts which apparently (and actually) teach that the soul is not immortal. So what criteria should I use to figure out which doctrine was correct? Weigh the texts, and see which side weighs more?

For every text one side uses, the other side has an explanation as to why the "clear reading" doesn't apply. For example, we explain that the comma was inserted in Christ's statement, that "forever" doesn't mean what we are accustomed to its meaning, that in Lazarus and the Rich Man Jesus made use of the fact that His hearers believed the soul was immortal in order to teach an unrelated truth, and so on. It's unavoidable that on any controverted subject there will be texts which appear to be clearly saying one thing, and other texts which clearly be saying another. This isn't a fault of Sctipure, but an inevitability, I would say primiarly based on our humanity, and the difficulty we have in understanding what God is trying to communicate to us.

Back to my dillemma. As I thought about it, it occured to me that the idea that God would eternally punish the wicked by burning them didn't seem to harmonize with what I knew of God's character. That was a very important point to me. It just didn't make sense. My paradigm was changing. That which I had accepted without questioning (hell was eternal), I started to question, and finally rejected. This is how I see the process working.

To summarize:

a)We have a paradigm.
b)That paradigm gets challenged.
c)We respond to the challenge.

When the response to c) is either our paradigm changes, or is enhanced, then we grow from the experience. If we simply reject out of hand new ideas because they don't conform with "our reality," (which is to say, our understanding of the clear reading of Scripture) then we don't.

I think I'll answer the second post point by point.



This is certainly true.



These are sort of orthogonal concepts. "Propitiation" has to do with appeasement, gaining the favor of someone. "Substitution" need not be for the purpose of propitiating. That is, Jesus' death can be substitutionary without there being any propitiation involved.

By the way, I assume you're thinking of Romans 3:25? "Propitiation" isn't the term used, but "hilasterion" which means "mercy seat." Young's literal translation has:



Wycliffe has:



That's pretty interesting. "Rightwiseness" is a cool word.

The NIV has



which seems like a good translation. To read "propitiation" into "mercy seat" is by no means necessary.



There's a couple of inaccuracies here. First of all, Christ's revealing the Father is not just one of the things that Christ did, which is how it appears to me you are putting things. EGW writes:



So we shouldn't understand Christ's work of revealing the Father as simply one of the things Christ came to do. It was *the* thing He came to do, and the other things He did fit within that context.

A second inaccuracy is to say that Maxwell focussed on Christ as our Exemplar. I think this is very inaccurate, and would be interested in any evidence you could provide to substantiate this claim.

A third inaccuracy is that Maxwell ignores the substitutionary aspects of Christ's death. This is confusing substitution with satisfaction, or propitiation. You can have substitution without satisfaction or propitiation. Substitution simply means that Christ died in our place, and this is indeed Biblical, and to the best of my knowledge, no one denies this.



This is true. They do use the idea of Christ as Example, as Revealer, as Substitute. The question is if they use the idea of Christ as one who obtains satisfaction, as one who propitiates God's wrath so that God can legally forgive us.



This is a red herring. No one claims this.



I'm not sure what your purpose was here. Is there some point you were making that you thought I would disagree with?

In regards to satisfaction/penal substitution, I see the following problems:

a)It is contrary to the teachings of Christ. Christ did not teach that God needed Him (Christ) to do something in order for Him (God) to be able to legally forgive us. He did not teach that satisfaction was necessary before forgiveness could be granted. In fact, He taught the opposite on several occasions.

b)Historically these ideas did not exist until a thousand years after Scripture was written. The Eastern Orthodox church, because it split off from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm's influence, has never held to these ideas. They ask, and rightly so, why it was not taught by any of the early fathers if it is Scriptural.

c)Another historical problem is that in the time of Paul, sacrifice simply did not have the meaning that those who interpret him give to it. That is, no culture viewed sacrifice as a legal necessity in order for God to be able to forgive. Romans 12:1 sets out the idea of sacrifice as it was understood by everyone.

d)It portrays a picture of God's character which is out of character with what we see revealed in Christ. When Christ was about to be crucified, He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." The character of God is that He freely forgives, not that He demands payment.

Much more could be added, but I'll stop here, as I'm probably already trying your patience. Thanks for your contributions, Inga.

Tom, I have urgent "real-life" matters to attend to, thus don't have time for a detailed reply. Not sure I would reply if I had the time.

You wrote:


It would be more pleasant to dialogue with you if you did not expect to argue with the content of all posts in reply to yours. This is not a battle field.

When I essentially agree with you, you ask "what the purpose" was!!

It would be so much nicer if we could view it as a conversation in which we explore truth together.

Just FYI, I'm a fan of Graham Maxwell and have probably listened to many hundreds of hours of tapes. My remarks were in regard to his major emphasis. I was not accusing him of heresy, as your response to my post would imply. (Suggestion: Try putting the best construction on the words of another poster.)

If/when I get back to this board, I shall probably avoid replying to you. Since you are posting in so many threads that may mean that I shall do my posting elsewhere.

Blessings,
Inga

Perhaps we could have a study on what more exactly Jesus did teach about His own death?

Inga, I asked you a question! I don't know what the purpose of the paragraphs I was asking about was. That's why I asked. I just flat out guessed you were wanting to tell me something you thought I didn't know. That's a very common thing people do.

I apologize if I guessed wrong. I certainly didn't mean to offend you.



I've apparently offended you in something I wrote. I'm sorry about that.



I asked that because I didn't understand what your purpose was. I still don't. Was it to agree with me? What was your purpose?



I do view these discussions as an opportunity to explore truth together, which is why I wrote what I did about paradigms.



I don't know why you would take my remarks as your accusing him of heresy. I pointed out some things you wrote that appeared to me to be inaccurate, and I stated why. I stated I would be interested in evidence for your statements, and I still am.

As a fan of Maxwell, I think you would agree that my response to your statements is right along the lines of what Maxwell would do in a similar situation, which is to ask for evidence to support a point of view.



It will be hard to carry on an exploration of truth together if you do not respond to my replies. If you will tell me how you would like me to discuss things with you, and what sort of things (examples please!) you don't like, I would be happy to oblige.

There are many things that MM and I disagree about, and several years ago we brought out some things we found objectionable in the writing of the other. Certain ways of phrasing things that we found objectionable. We have tailored our way of expression to not be offensive to the other. Occasionally we still step on each other's toes, and either I'll object about something, or the other will, and we'll apologize and carry on. We've had very lengthy dialogs for years.

I'm mentioning this because if you're interested in exploring truth, so am I, and I'm happy to adjust my form of expression so that it's agreeable to you, as I have for MM.



This seems a bit draconian. Here are the top 12 threads being discussed now.

1.Who are God's chosen?
2.Is Lifting hands OK in church?
3.Diaster preparedness
4.This thread
5.The flood thread
6.Can I offer you a steak.
7.Sermons and EGW.
8.Shades of Gray.
9.New Adventist Forum
10. Interview with LPK.
11.Maritime Conference News and Arrangements
12.Mind of Christ.

Of these, most I have not posted even one comment (specifically I don't believe I have posted anything at all for 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11). So of the top 12 threads I've only posted at all in 3 of them, and in one of them (the flood one) I've only made a couple of short posts.

So to say that you will post elsewhere because I am posting in so many threads doesn't seem fair.

It's not fair to me, because I'm not posting in so many threads.

It's not fair to those who would get a blessing from your posts.

And it's not fair to you yourself because I expect you get a blessing from posting here.

At any given time there's usually only 2 or 3 topics that I'm active in, so if you're goal is to avoid posting where I'm posting, that shouldn't be hard to do.

I'm a bit hurt by your response. Evidently I've written something which offended you rather severely, it seems to me. I'm very sorry about that.