The verse alludes to Christ's death, which must be interpreted via other "give" texts, etc. This "give" is by God himself, in the incarnation. The Godhead's agape motive is clear, too, but the legal need and sacrificial meaning aren't - needing other texts.



Why don't you, or do you (?), accept Pauline texts on the legal and sacrificial issues?







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.




Oh dear, you're not siding with the more and less authoritative Bible & SOP writers, are you: THAT isn't Adventist, y'know...




You interpreted statements of two people intimately associated with God's sacrificial system as both saying that that system had nothing to do with our atonement by Christ with God...: Sacrifices actually never required by God for granting forgiveness to man!(?) (Lucifer prior to the war in heaven has nothing to do with our situation!) Neither David nor Paul were inferring that animal sacrifice and Jesus' sacrifice weren't required to obtain forgiveness.

I dealt with substitution in detail due to your ambivalence re Christ saving us by his death - as is much more than just showing love. That clarified, we can focus on the legal meaning of Christ's death.


Propitiate is a sacrifice to make peace, but not like expiate - which from my reading does not involve suffering God's wrath against sin. Adventism recognises God's wrath , as do you, but Waggoner (in your excerpt from him) does not. God's wrath is one of two differences between Christ's propitiation and heathen worship - the other is indeed God's propitiation rather than ours!


God's wrath does not involve retribution for saving us: retribution does feature for the fire of hell, though, as grace, too, has its limit.

Suffering the wrath of God - wrath existing independent of Calvary! - is likely synonymous with being killed by the full burden of human guilt: thus was Christ made sin for us - no taint on his character, but rather divine wrath and our guilt separating him from his Father.


Sap is intimate to the wood - you have to look very closely to see it. Since your argument was the truth of the new heart for the believer, but you were discounting t he sacrificial system to attain pardon and regeneration, I was pointing out the bigger context you had missed - the forest, among which one finds the hidden truths like the new heart showing itself.


Now, now: don't displace the legal giving of life blood by the animal sacrifices and the Lamb of God with the spiritual rebirth experience of justification by faith which is enabled by the shedding of blood.

Your quest for heart appreciation of God's love in Christ is hiding from you the legal problem we have as sinful transgressors of God's law, and Christ's righteous solution in his life, death and resurrection, ultimate replacing sinful flesh with immortal humanity.


Personal and cultural expression can and do never define God's truth by themselves: Bible truth is above culture. Biblical wording like "without shedding of blood...no remission of sin" is as true then as now, and I do not rely on Calvin or any other non-Adventist writers for my understanding - even disagreeing with our own who depart from our true message.


No, Tom: God's truth isn't lost in nor tied to generation's turn of phrase. God's justice is a part of his character you don't deal with but is central to Jesus' Gospel, and subtly different to man's justice and mercy.

God's salvation plan differed from the surrounding nations' religion: don't get lost in non-Biblical religious thought of any period of history.


Atonement based on propitiation is Biblical, not distracted by Augustinian error: sin & guilt means we need a Saviour from our guilt and curse under the law. That's the basic legal matter Jesus dealt with...


God's wrath against sin is a given, so Waggoner missed a point there...

What you have avoided like the plague is Waggoner's point about dying tc self and sin by Christ's death involving the same experience.

The law and its reality are N O T independent of each other!! God's commandments and overall constitution are our sinful reality and dictate of salvation. Like it or not, the law is in us by Jesus or against us without him - protected either way by grace for turning to Christ. Law and reality jointly express our sinfulness and God's holiness AND JUSTICE - which Rosangela highlighted earlier this week...: which you must also acknowledge.

1.If we make the assumption that Jesus Christ intended His words be understood by Nicodemus, then it is not necessary to consider other "give" texts in order to understand His meaning, as Nicodemus would not have had access to those. That Jesus Christ had His death in mind in John 3:16 seems extremely clear to me. Before your comments, I had never seen this questioned before.

2.Regarding the Pauline texts, let's first see if we can come to some conclusions regarding Jesus Christ, since my points were based on His teaching. It appears that you agree with me that there is no evidence that Jesus Christ taught that His death was for the purpose of allowing God to legally pardon us. Is this correct?

3.Regarding your statement that neither David nor Paul were inferring (do you mean "implying"?) that forgiveness was not necessary in order for man to obtain forgiveness, this is not addressing what I actually said. I did not say that sacrifice was not necessary for man to be forgiven, but for God to be able to legally pardon us.

4.You wrote, "Adventism recognises God's wrath , as do you, but Waggoner (in your excerpt from him) does not." I don't understand your point here. First of all, Waggoner was an Adventist, and his teachings on righteousness by faith were given to us from God, according to Ellen White, an Adventist prophetess. So I'm not understanding how Waggoner's comments would be different than "Adventism's".

Secondly what you write implies that I am differing with Waggoner on this point, since you state that I recognize God's wrath, but Waggoner does not, but my point in citing Waggoner was to affirm what I've been saying, not counter it. In other words, I agree with what Waggoner wrote.

Thirdly, I also quoted the following from the SOP:



I understand this to be presenting precisely the same sentiment as that expressed in the Waggoner quote.

5.You wrote the suffering the wrath of God is likely synonymous with being killed by the full burden of human guilt. I mostly agree with this. The only reason I say "mostly" is that I would say it's not limited to this, so it is not quite synonymous, but, in principle, I agree with what you're saying.

6.Regarding the sacrificial system pointing to pardon and regeneration, I have no idea whatsoever why you would say I was denying this. I never said anything remotely like this. I've been making the point that the sacrificial system was not understood as teaching that Christ's death was necessary in order for Him to legally pardon us, that's all.

7.You claim that you are not relying on Calvin or Anselm for your understanding of Scripture, but how can you be sure? If one hears a certain thing repeated over and over again, one tends to accept it as truth, without questioning the foundation. I've been asking for evidence that some Christian before Anselm or Calvin understood the atonement along the lines that you are claiming. You say that Scripture teaches this, but if this is so, why did it take a millennium for anyone to see this? And doesn't it seem rather odd that this "truth" would be uncovered at precisely the time when spiritual darkness most pronounced?

8.Regarding God's justice, my point is that justice in Scripture is presenting as being restorative, not retributive. Justice was seen as the way of restoring the community to shalom. So we see an emphasis on clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, taking care of the widow and orphan and so forth, as these were acts of restoration.

Here are a couple of texts which bring out the thought:



Justice is manifest by mercy and compassion.



Because God is a God of justice, He longs to be gracious to us.

Jesus Christ's death manifest God's justice, in accordance with the law. I agree with this completely. However, the justice of God is that of the Bible, which is restorative in nature.

9.Regarding your claim that I've "missed" Waggoner's point about our dying to self and Christ's experiencing the same, I agree completely with Waggoner, and this is fully in harmony with the points I've been making. For example, I've quoted the following, which deals with this very theme, many times:



10.Regarding the law and reality jointly expressing our sinfulness and God's holiness and justice, I agree with this. The law describes reality, so the jointness of necessity follows. Our sinfulness involves our choosing self over others, principally God, and the law wonderfully expresses this. God's holiness and justice is also expressed by the law, a transcript of His character, describing what holy and just thoughts, words and deeds consist of.

So, do Adventism say Jesus was a mere man or that everyone who qualifies as a SOP writer is divine?

Thanks for the Q, but it's about the whole Bible, all prophets, teachers and writers - with named books or not, being inspired and authoritative. 2 Tim 3:16. The SOP draws its literary authority from Bible prophecy.

Tom appeared to subvert Paul's teachings with Jesus' teachings, which would have him being less authoritative in the Bible. It may rather be that Tom is basing his atonement theory purely on Jesus' own Gospel words and holding that Paul didn't clarify the legal aspects of the atonement with his Sanhedrin insights. IOW, there are no legal issues, despite "ransom for many" and Paul's wording expanding on that, on top of OT teaching.

There's no confusion on who is (now) human divine and who is just human.:-)

Yes, the inspiration of these authors need be remembered, whatever we mean by inspiration. Much could be said about this..

If I were to decide that I understand Jesus better than Paul did, someone would need to bring me back to earth again. But if the disagreement is regarding what Paul meant by what he wrote, that is different. Even Peter wrote that Paul is difficult to understand.

Also I do wonder, is there anything that has not been said about either of these views? Is there anything that has not been understood regarding either of these views? If Tom has heard and understood the legal atonement view and still choses to reject it, further argumentation ought to fall under advice to avoid pointless argument. And if you Colin and Rosangela have heard and understood the Christus Victor view and still hold on to the legal atonement view, to what use is further argumentation? Let everyone be convinced in their own mind.

Jesus Christ is "the revelation of God" to use EGW's words, or "the Word of God" to use John's. When we've seen Him, we've seen the Father. He is the ultimate revelation of the truth about God. If we wish to know what God is like, He should be our chief study.

According to the SOP, all that we can know about God was revealed by Him. Assuming this is true, I would think that something as important to understand God's character as Christ's death would have been clearly and sufficiently explained by Him, which I believe is the case. I believe Paul echoed Christ's teachings, explaining the same Gospel concepts which Christ taught, but in his own words. I don't believe Paul was teaching a new Gospel which Christ Himself did not teach.



There is no reason to understand "ransom for many" as dealing with a legal issue, except that one already has that way of looking at things. This phrase of Christ's was not understood by anyone as having any penal substitution meaning until many centuries after Christ said it. If somehow by "ransom for man" Jesus Christ meant, "a payment so that My Father can legally forgive," surely someone would have understood this and communicated this, but no one did for many centuries.

A similar comment would apply to Paul's writings. No one understood Paul's writings as teaching that Christ had to die in order for God to be able to legally forgive us until Calvin, I don't think. At least, I'm not aware of anyone who suggested this before Calvin.

1.We know, because Jesus knew and we have the Bible today: the Pharisees didn't know! Nicodemus would have understood "God gave" as we do, had he held to our general knowledge of the promised Messiah...: you're expecting too much of this Pharisee!...

As for legal requirements for forgiveness, I'll deal with that later.

2.Jesus & Paul teaching differing on the atonement? No, and neither omits legal requirements. Jesus spoke of "ransom", while Paul wrote of Jesus being made the curse of the law for us. What do you make of Jesus' "ransom" statement in the light of the rest of the Bible? It is the rest of the Bible which you may not exclude from studying Jesus' teachings. I'll go to the sanctuary service and its requirements set up by Jesus himself to deal with your points (3)&(6), now.

We are under law if it weren't for Jesus' grace and righteousness, which we receive by faith. Both our sinful problem is legal and Jesus' solution is legal: Jesus fulfilled the righteousness (positive) and curse of the law (negative) conditions for being our substitute and sacrifice for sin. This was required for the everlasting covenant, the Son of God's pre-incarnate
promise to Abraham, by the compact God made with his Son to save sinful man as the Lamb of God, "slain from the foundation of the world", which Jesus needed legal approval for after his resurrection: "I have not yet ascended to my Father" (or words to that effect).

Legal conditions for forgiveness are 2 or 3 layers thick! By law and grace we must rely on Jesus who himself must perform the contract with God to save us, and of course the everlasting covenant is inheritance for all men (thru faith!) by Jesus' last will & testament.

Divine wrath against sin is not of an offended deity, but of a holy, just & good deity, as Romans says God's law is. Only false gods would be offended by sinful man!...You denounce the concept of divine wrath and then agree that Jesus suffered God's wrath:compare your (4)&(5). On some points you state mutually exclusive positions, you know.

I'm not concerned with Calvin or Anselm, least of all because Adventism is Calvinistic, but Wesleyan. What did Anselm say, anyway. I've found Adventist literature presents the GC very well.

Since you agree the law and reality are the same, you've still left the legal basis of salvation open - you don't admit the legal reality you allow for.

Justice is restorative??? You confuse justice, mercy and grace, even in your texts - the meaning is not in a plain reading: mercy and compassion require grace because justice is merciless were it not for grace - consider the judgement of hell! Both texts bring God's holy justice home to us: by grace alone can we be merciful and compassionate - but by justice alone we CANNOT. The Isaiah text MEANS that were God NOT graceous his justice would not be balanced with his mercy...!

It's God's grace and mercy which restores us sinful people to his glory. His justice speaks for his holiness, but his salvation is his mercy speaking for his grace, which is the other side of his holiness.

God's justice is the principal part of our jealous God's holiness you seem to make no time to talk of or exalt.

Oh, yes: you insisted you believe we do indeed die to sin and self when our faith experience starts, as taught by Waggoner. This time you provide a DA quote on God working his graceous charm to portray his Gospel character by the Son of God himself to dispel Satan's lies about God - Satan foisting his own evil character onto his holy Creator...

Tom, this DA quote is of God clarifying his character in Jesus: It's NOT about Jesus dying our death to sin, which she writes of, too, but which YOU have not quoted her on when challenged for that. You have never argued or agreed on this forum - to my knowledge, and almost definitely not on this thread, that we die to self and sin by Christ's death to the same. I must reiterate: you do not argue for or support the teaching that we die to sin in Christ as we come to and exercise faith, on learning of God's agape truth from the Gospel. Discovering the truth of agape and accepting it as true is the only Gospel element of what I've just listed that you support: you say anything but that we die to sin when we accept Jesus presentation of God.

Last time you countered that the devils in James' Epistle which believed God is love but tremble is a false belief. No, the devils truly believe but do not submit: your idea of reconciliation isn't submissive either since our agreement that God is agape cannot express love in response unless we first die to sin & self to be reborn of the Spirit. Dying to sin is how we learn to love God!

...Now, you may have mentioned recently "giving one's life to God", but I can't recall where you said it - if you did. If you did, why are you so loath even to utter such a vital seed of faith, when the topic is so pervasive in discussions here?

Better stop here, ever more anxious about your ideas: up side is however well we do or don't explain ourselves, sincere faith does work. Rejecting truth may be fatal as it pertains to "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".

1.When Jesus said to Nicodemus



what is it you think Jesus expected Nicodemus to think He meant?

2.Let's deal with Jesus for the time being. I've been saying that I don't see any evidence that Jesus Christ taught that His death was necessary in order for God to be able to legally forgive us. You stated the following:



which I took it was agreeing with what I said. But now you seem to be disagreeing with my point, adducing Jesus' use of the word "ransom" as evidence. So which is it please? Are you saying that, indeed, Jesus did not teach that His death was for the purpose of allowing God to be able to forgive us, as your previous statement implies (even given reasons for why this would be so: a)disciples didn't support His determination to sacrifice Himself b)Jesus had much to teach them that they weren't ready for) or are you disagreeing, on the basis of the word "ransom"?

3.I don't denounce the concept of divine wrath. I've never stated that. Just because I don't agree with your interpretation of some point does not mean I am rejecting the concept involved. You may state, "You are rejecting my concept of divine wrath" and I'll agree to that.

4.You wrote:



I take it you meant that Adventism is *not* Calvinistic, but Wesleyan. This is irrelevant to my point, which is before Calvin came up with the idea that Jesus died in order for God to be able to legally forgive us, this idea did not exist. Surely if this idea is indeed Biblical, and this is what Paul taught, someone within the first 1500 years of time from when Paul wrote to Calvin should have understood something as fundamental as the primary reason (as you understand it, it appears to me) for Christ's death. Who understood this?

5.You wrote:



I do admit the legal reality I've allowed for. I just don't think it is arbitrary (i.e. imposed).

6.You write that justice is merciless, but here's a text I quoted:



This is the opposite of merciless. Justice is made manifest in acts of mercy and compassion.

7.Regarding what you are asserting in regards to what I'm saying in regards to our dying to sin, I'm not aware of saying anything different than what EGW says. I'll find a couple of her statements on this at random and quote them.





I couldn't find anything different than these. I agree with the points she makes her in regards to dying to self/sin.

Please present some quote of hers which speaks to the point you are making in regards to dying to sin in Christ.

8.Regarding the devils not believing, it's clear they do not believe because Jesus Christ said whoever believed would not perish, and they will perish. So the "believe" that James is speaking of in not "believe" in the sense Jesus Christ is speaking of, which is my point. If a person believes in the sense of which Christ spoke, his faith will be manifest by works, which is James' point.

9.You wrote:



Colin, you make repeatedly what seem to me to be very strong assertions regarding my points of view, such as here asking why I am so loath even to utter etc. an idea which of course I agree with, that giving our life to God is important. You make these statements without quoting what I've actually said, even though I've asked you repeatedly to do so.

Please, if you're going to make a strong claim like this, present something I've said. From my point of view, this is just coming out of the blue, and is utterly without foundation.

How many times have I quoted DA 175, 176? Isn't the idea of which you speak right there in this quote I've presented so many times?

Jn 3 may have made sense to Nicodemus: hopefully it did! - still maybe only after Jesus was crucified which alerted the disciples, too.::)

How much do we resort to the Gospels to study the meaning of the atonement rather than the writings of a converted Pharisee? The "ransom theory" isn't good theology, since God plays by the rules! Jesus' statements are according to the religious culture of his day: he mainly warned how & by which Jews he would die. He also said about glorifying God,...and he stated his ransom for many. The history of atonement theories is due more to the religious climate and culture than secular culture: understanding what Jesus meant is to study the whole Bible, not just the Gospels - indeed the sanctuary service is Jesus' own teaching, since the Son of God announced "I am" to Moses! The truth of the covenants is also Jesus' teaching - from that time. It's not just his Gospel wording!

The atonement theories mirror better understanding of the Bible over time, since the first few centuries focused on celebrating the Christian faith's birth and the natures of Christ.
The Reformation fine tuned the "satisfaction theory", and today elements of nearly every theory bar the "ransom theory" have truth in them: we entertain a fuller teaching, including the sanctuary teaching and the two covenants, not forgetting the affect of God's revelation in Christ on Jesus' faith relationship with us.

As for your other points, your "arbitrary" objection to our legal reality puzzles me: how do you define arbitrary here?

As for divine justice, our holy God is merciful to sinners due to his grace, not his justice: since our God is a consuming fire, divine grace brings mercy. That Zechariah text specifies two or three activities - justice being separate from the rest. God in Christ brought justice and mercy together, by grace!

Good to see you actually mention belief in dying to self & sin, since such is not necessarily implicit in 'turn and repent'.

I still don't know the answer to the question I've been asking. I've stated there is no evidence that Jesus Christ taught that His death was necessary in order for God to be able to legally forgive us. I've been asking for some time if you agree with this or not. I'd still like to know.

I'll restate my opinion on this, which is that Jesus Christ, the master teacher, did make clear the purpose of His mission, including His death. Paul, and others who wrote after His death, did not teach a new Gospel which Jesus did not teach, but simply presented the same Gospel, brought by Jesus, in their own words, applying it to circumstances they were involved with.



I think the Gospel was best understood near the time of Christ and His disciples/apostles, and became less understood over time, until around the time of Anselm, which was the "noon of the papacy," the "midnight of the world." As the Reformation came, things became to be better understood, in general, but there were still relics of error that needed to be dusted off, including Sunday worship, the immortality of the soul, the human nature of Christ, and the atonement.



The "satisfaction theory" didn't exist until a Millenium after Christ's death. This idea has an idea developed during the noon of the papacy being "fine tuned," and still doesn't explain why nobody had these ideas for many centuries after Christ died. Is it really possible that for a thousand years that nobody understand this concept which you say is so crucial?



I agree that now light has been increasing on these subjects.



I defined it as "imposed."

Here's an example. There's a law against running a stop sign. This law has penalties. One penalty is that if you run a stop sign you may get in an accident. This is a non-arbitrary penalty. Another penalty is that a cop may give you a ticket. This is an arbitrary penalty.



This is the definition I had in mind.



I would say that God is merciful to sinners because God is love. It is God's character to be merciful.



The Zechariah text says:



Justice is not separate from mercy and compassion, but manifest by mercy and compassion. The text says: "Executed true justice." How is true justice executed? By showing mercy and compassion everyone to his brother.



The DA quote I've been presenting over and over again has these elements explicitly stated. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up, however, as I've simply been making the point that Jesus Christ did not teach that His death was necessary in order for God to legally pardon us. Given this is the point I've been making, why would you expect me to mention "belief in dying to self and sin"? How is this germane to my point?