Your points...later - some of them invalid: is rebirth of John 3:3 without Jesus' death being salvivic - are we reborn simply by believing God's revelation in Jesus?

I asked about Jesus Christ. I said, "I see no evidence whatsoever from Jesus Christ that He saw His death in terms of enabling God to be able to legally forgive us."

In terms of Ellen White, we know from her account of how God treated Lucifer that Christ's death was not a legal necessity for the offer of pardon. God offered Lucifer pardon "again and again" without Christ's having died. He offered to restore Lucifer to his position, in addition to pardoning him, even after he had been organizing a rebellion, if he would confess his sin.

She writes:



If one looks at the entire chapter "It Is Finished," which is devoted to discussing what Christ's death accomplished, one sees the legal aspect barely mentioned. Something I find interesting is that even if there were some truth to the penal substitution idea, that would have to be a minor point in all that Christ accomplished. Again, in the 7 pages or so where EGW discusses this, it is barely mentioned. What about all the other things Christ's death accomplished? I hardly ever, if ever, see these things mention, except in passing, as a way to dismiss discussing them further.

For example, I don't recall ever seeing the quote from DA 762 I quoted above being discussed in any detail. Yet our beholding the character of God and being drawn mack to Him is the crux of the whole matter. Towering above any particular theories we may have regarding the atonement is to have a true understanding of God's character of love, to be drawn to Him, and having a personal relationship with Him because one loves Him and admires His values and the way He does things.

I think it's unlikely you or Daryl are seeing something I haven't seen. I mean, in terms of this specific question (I'm sure there are things you guys see that I don't). I originally came from a paradigm (before being familiar with the 1888 message) which would be very similar to Darryl's, and then after being acquainted with the 1888 message my paradigm became one like your (Colin). After thinking about things some more, my paradigm has shifted to be like the one Ty Gibson presents. Fifield's paradigm, from the 1890's, was very similar. It appears to me that Waggoner's was as well, although he didn't flesh things out on this question nearly as much as Fifield did.



As you can see, I'm asking for clarification on Daryl's statement to comment further.

Regarding viewing the sanctuary service as proof that there was a legal requirement for Christ to die, this is simply circular reasoning. Of course Christ died as prefigured by the sanctuary service. But what was the purpose for the death that was prefigured? That's the whole question. Not that there was a purpose, but what the purpose was. For example, Peter tells us that Christ died to "bring us to God." Could that be what we see prefigured by the sanctuary service?

So most were valid then. I'll take that!



"Rebirth" means simply "conversion." We are reborn as we see things in a new way. That's what conversion is about; being changed from within, seeing things in a new way, operating from different principles. Of course there is also the reality of being part of a new family, the family of God, having become a child of God.

Here's the best description of this I know:



We are born again (or "saved," to use EGW's word here) as we "look and live."

To "look and live" as sinners under the law involves more than healing a physical ailment as with Moses' bronze serpent...

Since we are sinful, agreeing and believing that God is good, holy, merciful, and died to show us his love - your singular point on this thread (?), doesn't save us, since the devils also believe, and tremble. Wanting Jesus as personal Saviour doesn't save either, because "how does one take him as Saviour and Lord"?

You haven't responded to the point of Rom 7:(1-)4. You appear to have ignored it! - it explains the basis for Lk 9:23 - denying self is only by the Romans text: participating in Christ's death to sin, self, and for us. Unless we can thus deny self by dying to sin in Christ, by grace - for and through faith, we cannot be reborn by 'looking and living'.

Since you insist that Christ's death "doesn't save" by being a salvation element, we couldn't avail ourselves of his self-sacrifice since it wouldn't have been a sacrifice for sin for us (Rom 8:3,4)...I believe, as perhaps you used to (as you yourself said earlier), that Christ died as me & instead of me as himself the sacrifice for sin (Rom 8:3,4), so that he by grace made Rom 7:1-4 true for all of us.

Saving us from sin involved every part of his human experience, including his death: we must die to sin, in and by Christ's death, to be able to deny self!...Or..., do you recognise and allow that we must rely on Christ's death for our death to sin - and our own sinfulness - in order to be born again and know the peace of God and the heart and life of Christ created in us by his Spirit, under Christ's Lordship.

Christ's death doesn't save us from eternal death; it isn't our death to sin and our sinfulness (both matters of law and justice!)? On the contrary, that's salvation by Christ's death!

I'll pause here, for further comment.

James point is that the devils don't actually believe. Their belief is false, which is why they tremble. James was not disputing Paul, that salvation is by faith, but was arguing against presumption, where one claims to have faith, but doesn't really have it. Saving faith saves, and is manifest by works, which is why James challenges the believer to show his faith by his works.

This is exactly in line with your point that "Wanting Jesus as personal Saviour doesn't save either". This is exactly correct. It is not wanting Jesus as a personal Savior that saves, but actually choosing to do so. It is not the desire to have faith, but the actual exercising of faith, which saves.



Well, my point was that I saw no evidence that Jesus Christ taught that He died so that God could legally forgive us. You responded by citing a bunch of texts, none of which were from Jesus. So yes, I did ignore these texts, because they were unresponsive, as it appeared to me.



It will take more time to decipher this than I have right now, so I'll respond later. Thanks for fleshing out your thought, as it makes it easier to respond.



No, I haven't said this anywhere, I'm sure, as this is an essential element of the Christus Victor theme.



I'll have to come back to this as well.



Here's a quick response, which is rather a long one, as I'll be quoting a rather long item from C. S. Lewis.



Does this make any sense to you? I see things rather as C. S. Lewis has expressed things here.

It appears to me that your comments have not been directed at the point I was taking issue with (or have I misunderstood you?) My point has been that Jesus did not teach that His death was for the purpose of giving God the legal right to forgive us. I haven't seen you address this at all. You've been raising, it appears to me, new points which I haven't been discussing. I'm happy to do so, but I'm curious as to your feelings about the points I've been raising. In particular, do you disagree with what I said? (that there is no evidence that Jesus Christ taught that His death was for the purpose of giving God the legal right to forgive us)

If you disagree, do you feel that your responses have been explaining why, because if so, I'm completely missing how.

Thanks Colin.

Happy Sabbath!

Yes, agreed, "gave" in Jn 3:16 is an indirect reference to God sacrificing his only-begotten Son from his throne in glory, forever(!).

Other texts are needed to instruct how to use this glorious promise. The one element of RBF you have left out is that spiritual death to sin precedes repentance and rebirth. Rom 7:4 states Jesus supplies this experience by his death for sin: you agree with this link, for which Jesus' death saves us from the curse of the law, in that the law condemns sinful sinners to the 2nd death?

The texts I quoted from Paul's letters stating Christ's death according to law only prove that Jesus didn't argue the legal issues of his death - goodness sake, his 12 didn't even support his determination to sacrifice himself...he told them he had much more to teach them that they weren't yet ready for: Paul taught the church these truths after meeting Jesus in vision following his own baptism in Damascus. That Paul wrote doesn't mean Jesus didn't know or not mean it when he died! You weren't excluding Paul's "Romans" and other writings for lack of express 'coroborration' by Jesus in the 'gentle' gospels, are you? Paul is as authoritative...

B4 I deal with your misinterpretation of texts re sacrifice, the sacrificial system taught the coming Messiah's substitutionary death for us sinful people. What purpose of substitution? Suffering the wrath of God against sin, and thus God was propitiating for us - a total break with heathen religions' human propitiation! Thus, too, God is both Judge and Advocate - totally unlike western justice, indeed.

As for your Ps 51 and Rom 12 quotes, you're missing the forest for the sap in the wood: a contrite heart is renewed spiritually by sincere sacrifice and confession - NOT without sacrifice...!! David was condemning pompostuous religion, of course. The Apostle Paul was summing up the spiritual walk which is enabled by sacrifice - verily Christ's! - not rendering his sacrifice as vain. Tom, given my texts, you sound almost historically critical here. "Heirs of Christ", the testator's testament of Hebrews, back up Rom 7:1-4 to make Christ's death the death of the everlasting covenant and the centrepeace of the gospel. If you repeat such sentiments again, I shall consider that you're not just having a bad day.

There can be only one true theory of the atonement. Personal relationship with Jesus is the beginning of faith, no doubt, but you think one can be Adventist without finally understanding the truth of the atonement??! If only to arrive @ mature faith, we need to experience full atonement with God. Yes, how God made propitiation with himself for us must be grasped for else there can be no final atonement by Jesus for our lack of understanding sin and righteousness! Unless Jesus was made the curse of the law for us in & by his death, we would still under the curse of the law against our sinful nature and record and there would be no salvation for Christ would have died in vain.

Ezek 19:20 I think it is: "The soul that sins shall die." Since God is the Judge, that is the rule of law - with legal requirements for saving from that law, and Jesus saves us according to this rule of law in Scripture.

Excerpting SOP's "Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ" you wrote Well, no: By grace are we saved through faith. Justification is experienced through faith, but grace remains the mechanism of salvation: by which it happens;.it is experienced, accessed, through faith. Otherwise grace is not sufficient.

One must reason and not just take statements as apparently, logically accurate....the meaning is easily missed otherwise, eh.

Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ, correct? Do we agree on this point?



I'm not following you here. What do you mean by saying "not just take statement as apparently, logically accurate?" Do you mean to say that the statement (I assume by this you are referring to the EGW statement) is apparently logically accurate, but in reality isn't? What meaning is easily missed by taking the statement that it can not be repeated often enough that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone?

I'm not understanding why you said that John 3:16 makes no mention of Jesus' death when apparently you understand that it does. What was your point?



I think Jesus did a fine job in explaining it.



Here is Waggoner's comment on this:



This seems to me to be saying the same thing I've been saying. Do you see any difference?



So you are agreeing with me that Jesus did not teach this. I accept this. Your idea then is that Paul taught a theology which Christ did not teach. This I disagree with. I believe that Paul was explaining the same concepts, preaching the same Gospel, that Jesus did.



I simply stated there was no evidence that Jesus taught that His death was necessary in order for God to be able to legally forgive us. It seems to me you are completely in agreement with this.



as Jesus is? I disagree. Jesus is "the revelation of God." (EGW). When we see Jesus, we've seen the Father. I can't imagine that Paul, or Ellen White, or any other servant of Jesus Christ would claim to be as authoritative as He was.



What interpretation? Do you mean my quotations of Ps. 51 and Romans 12? That's the only thing I can recall mentioning. How are these texts misinterpretations of the meaning of sacrifice?



The purpose of substitution is stated eloquently by EGW. Christ suffered the death that was ours that we might receive the live that was His.



I agree that Christ suffered the wrath of God against sin. The passage from Acts 2 I've been quoting explains this, as does the end of Romans 4.

Regarding God's "propitiating for us", I agree with this, understanding that "propitiate" means "make peace with" (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). For example:





If by this you have reference to the vain efforts of main to find favor with God by one's own efforts, I agree.



This similarity with what I perceive your view to be and the Western perspective is the emphasis on retribution as opposed to restoration, not that one party plays more than one part.



What does this mean?



David's point was that a contrite heart is what God desires. This is the meaning of sacrifice. Paul makes the same point. When we, with contrite heart, recognize the sacrifice of God in giving us His Son, our reaction will be, assuming we respond to the Holy Spirit, to give ourself to Him. This is the meaning of sacrifice.



My point was that what David and Paul wrote were expressions of what sacrifice meant to the cultures of their time. It was not only the Hebrews who had this idea. Nobody had Anselm's or Calvin's idea. The purpose of sacrifice was to express one's devotion to one's Deity. All cultures shared this concept, and none had Anselm's or Calvin's idea.



We don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, do we? The methodology of considering what the historical context was is absolutely correct in the understanding of literature, whether inspired or not. If we wish to understand Ellen White, we should understand how she used language and what the language she used was understood by her contemporaries. Similar logic applies to Scripture. When the different authors wrote, they expected that their words would be understood in a specific way, and understanding their culture and how their contemporaries would understand their words is a great help.



What sentiments? That there is no historical or cultural foundation for people understanding things along the lines of Anselm or Calving before these men's times? I assume this is what you are referring to. What evidence is there for this? What Christian between the time the NT was written and a millennium later understood things along the line that Anselm or Calvin laid out?



There are many metaphors used to explain the atonement. It's a subject that will be studied throughout eternity. It's not something anyone here has exhausted.



Do you mean by this without believing what Anselm or Calvin taught? If so, yes, I believe one can be an Adventist without believing these things. I can't think of anyone who has expressed the concepts of the atonement more clearly than Ty Gibson. He's certainly an Adventist.



Assuming this means "at-one-ment," or reconciliation, I agree.



Are you saying here that one must think like Anselm and Calvin did in regards to propitiation in order for their to be a complete atonement? If so, I disagree. Here's something from Waggoner regarding propitiation:



I agree with Waggoner's comments here. They seem to me to be in harmony with what I've been saying.



I should really write at length regarding this (perhaps I will in the near future), because this is the crux of our disagreement. You see the condemnation that comes from the law as something arbitrary (by which I mean imposed, not a natural consequence) whereas I see condemnation as the direct result of the choices which one makes, and the law as a recognition, not a cause, of this reality. IOW the law is descriptive of reality, as is the text you cited.

It is a fact that the soul that sins will die. Why? Because of some action of the law? No. The law simply recognizes and warns of the reality of the situation. Even if there were nothing written, no law, which said explicitly "if you sin, you will die," it would still be the case that those who sin die.