Tom,

Considering your defence of the Christus Victor view and also considerinig that you have used the eastern orthodox holding to this view as an argument of historical context, my question is. How important is this piece of theology for you in the overall scheme of things? Would you for instance consider joining an eastern orthodox fellowship because of it? Or will you prioritise the doctrines of sabbath and the great controversy theme higher and thus stay an adventist? How far are you willing to go to live up to this commitment for the Christus Victor view of salvation history?

No. The way He deals with our sin & guilt is by healing us of our guilt and saving us from our sin.



I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Christ asked His Father to forgive those who were persecuting Him. Christ's self-sacrifice was not necessary for God to be able to hear Christ's prayer. It was similar to Stephen's prayer as he was dying. He was simply reflecting the spirit of Christ, the character of God, in so doing.



Fifield didn't write anything like that Christ died to reconcile our sin to God. Where do you get such an idea? I hope you were sincerely mistaken in arguing that Fifield died to reconcile our sin to God.



This is 1 John 4:10, Christ is "the propitiation for our sins."

Fifield: He did not have any grudge against them. He would like to forgive everybody. But why could he not do it? - It would annul his law, if it was an arbitrary law; but if it were not, it would lead men to go into sin, and sin and death would result.

Colin:The sentence including the bold words doesn't make sense: an arbitrary law annulled for being 'kind' while a law tempting us into sin isn't arbitrary.

This sentence from Fifield has totally confused me.

Me:What Fifield is saying is that if the law were something arbitrary, meaning that it prescribed an imposed or artificial penalty, as opposed to describing the actual results of what happens when one acts contrary to the principles of God's love, then God by arbitrarily forgiving would annul such a law. But since the law is not arbitrary, but instead describes a real problem, which is that those who act contrary to the principles which God espouses will experience misery, pain and death, God had to take action which would solve these real problems.

I view SDAism as a continuation of the Reformation. I think there was great light at the time just after Christ, the time of Paul, John and so forth, and that this light started diminishing until the Middle Ages when, with the Reformation the light started to be rediscovered. So things like the Sabbath, the immortality of the soul, and so forth were lost sight of.

I see the concept of the "Great Controversy" as a great feature of SDAism, to which a great deal of credit should go to Ellen White. She did not originate the concept, but she developed it to a far greater degree than had existed. I think this concept is a tremendous mechanism by which one can view truth, including the question of why Christ had to die. I think it's superior to Christus Victor, as we have light through the Spirit of Prophecy that those before her did not have. I think Christus Victor is the best of the available views before the Great Controversy idea came about.

My point in mentioning the Eastern Orthodox view is to make clear that the idea of penal substitution did not exist for over a thousand years. Every other thing that we believe existed earlier than that. The Sabbath existed, the idea that the soul is not eternal existed, all sorts of ideas in relation to Christ's divinity/humanity existed, but the penal substitution idea did not exist. If it were really the case that Paul, John, and Jesus had this idea in mind when discussing the death of Christ, wouldn't someone, somewhere before Calvin have got it? That's the question I've been asking.

There are many SDA's who have, and have had, the ideas I've been expressing. For example, it seems to me that E. J. Waggoner had the ideas I've been sharing, or, at a minimum, something very close. George Fifield, a contemporary of Waggoner, had the views I've been sharing, and, indeed, I've been quoting from him extensively. Among modern SDA's, Ty Gibson is a well known author who shares the view I've been presenting.

I believe that God chose the SDA church as a vehicle by which a message should be preached to prepare the world for the coming of Christ. I believe some day the SDA church will preach this message. So I am an SDA.

No one had systematized the doctrine of righteousness by faith until Luther, and no one had the idea of an investigative judgment until the SDA pioneers. So?

It seems to me you are saying that God’s forgiveness has nothing to do with Christ’s sacrifice, but has to do only with man’s attitude of repentance in face of Christ’s sacrifice.

This, to me, is in total disagreement with the doctrine of righteousness by faith as exposed by the Bible and by Ellen White.

“Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:24-26).

“Justice demanded not merely that sin be pardoned; the death penalty must be met. The Saviour has met this demand. His broken body, his gushing blood, satisfied the claims of the law. Thus he bridged the gulf made by sin between earth and heaven. He suffered in the flesh, that with his robe of righteousness he might cover the defenseless sinner.” {YI, April 16, 1903 par. 6}

She says clearly that the death penalty must be met to satisfy the claims of the law. It’s not that God must kill those who transgress His law – it’s that sin must be judged, and this produces in the transgressor a weight of guilt which inevitably leads to death. This is the penalty of the law, the legal requirement which Christ met. Our sin was judged in Him, so that we don’t have to face its judgment and bear the weight of its guilt. To be in harmony with His own character, God couldn’t abstain from judging sin, God couldn’t pardon without judging sin, so He judged it in Christ. God Himself provided the means through which we could be pardoned and, at the same time, sin could be judged and condemned as it should be.

Your response is rather indirect. I'll try to interpret it, and you can tell me if my interpretation is correct.

You seem to be implicitly agreeing the points that I made, but don't think these points are important, for reasons exemplified by that fact that no one had systematized the doctrine of rbf until Luther, nor had the idea of an investigative judgment been taught until SDA pioneers did so. Is this correct?



I agree with this somewhat, but I see it differently. What I see is that God reveals sin to an individual, and that revelation produces in such a one a weight of guilt which leads to death. This doesn't happen arbitrarily, but happens simply because of the reality of sin and God's character. The principle is explained here:



The righteous are willing to be purged from sin, and thus are able to abide God's presence after the resurrection. The wicked are unwilling to do so, and cannot. Just a little earlier we read:



Also



So we see that the revelation of God's character has an opposite effect upon the righteous and the wicked. To the righteous, it is life. To the wicked, it is death. It is the revelation of God's character which judges and condemns sin. Not by an arbitrary action on His part, but as something which flows forth spontaneously by virtue of who He is, just as in the case of only the pure in heart being able to abide in Christ's presence.

So the whole problem is sin. Not an arbitrary act on God's part to judge or condemn sin, but sin itself. If man could be purged from sin, then he could abide in God's presence, and all would be fine.

It is not God's judgment of or condemnation of sin, as a separate action undertaken by Him or something other than God simply reveling His love (e.g. "the glory of He who is love will destroy them") that causes the wicked to die, but sin itself, by virtue of what it does to their character, in unfitting them to abide in God's presence.



Here's something from GC 543:



Isn't this judging sin?



Nothing arbitrary needs to be done to judge or condemn sin. Say you have a loved one who takes drugs. You've seen the effect that drugs does to this person. You judge and condemn drugs. Why? Because they cause misery, suffering and death to your loved one. There's no need to affect some other person with drugs and have that person die in order for some requirement you have that drugs be judged and condemned by you.

Now if somehow the death of another would prevent your loved from suffering the effects of drugs, then such a sacrifice would make sense. I see the impact of Christ's sacrifice brought out here:



By Christ's sacrifice, we are drawn back to God. This is just what we need.

I wanted to make another point in reference to what's being said here, as this gets to the crux of the matter of our difference. What I perceive you to be saying is that God acts differently to the wicked than how He acts towards the righteous. He does one thing to one group, and another thing to the other group. To the wicked, He does something, He judges sin and condemns it, which causes their death. To the other group, because they complied with conditions which were set forth, God doesn't do this same thing. So the wicked die, and the righteous live, because God treats them differently, depending upon whether or not they complied with the conditions He set forth.

I see God treating both groups the same, and that one group dies and the other group lives because of what they have done to themselves, in the former case, and because of what they have allowed God to do in the latter.

The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. The light of the glory of God is the same, but the result of this light is different, depending on one's character. The same sun bakes the clay but melts the ice.

I notice, Tom, you clearly avoided commenting on Rosangela's SOP quotes, contrasting with her comments instead. That's not fair: you must deal with EGW quotes which add to the quotes presenting your, limited argument. Come on (to use Delia Smith's famous rallying cry to "her", own - personally owned - football club, Norwich City, in Norfolk, England): Let's be having you!

As for different treatment by God between the saved and the lost, you suggest Rosangela is writing about, I'm sure Rosangela was not omitting (in argument or thinking) from her Rom 3 quote the 3 verses immediately before her quote...where differences are cancelled by God himself in dealing with fallen man: "...for there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [all (in the Greek)] being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus".

Let's try to reduce silly suggestions, hey?;-)

I agree that one group dies because of what they have done to themselves and the other group lives because of what they have allowed God to do. But I see this as just part of the truth. I see Christ’s death as substitutive and meritorious and, as such, as making a fundamental difference in relation to the judgment. On the Day of Judgment, God will manifest His abhorrence for every sin that was ever committed – except the sins for which He has already manifested His abhorrence on the cross and which have already been forgiven. That’s why I agree with Luther’s words: “Mine is Christ's living and dying as if I had lived his life and died his death.”

That's because I've commented on them many times already. Regarding Rom. 3:23ff, I agree with Waggoner's take, which I've already quoted on this thread.

Regarding YI, April 16, 1903 par. 6 I've commented on this quite a few times (at least the thought) on this thread.

There's no need to just keep repeating things I've already said, is there? I'm trying to move the conversation forward.



I've dealt with the quote. For example, I mentioned that God offered to pardon Lucifer many, many times, according to EGW. If EGW held the view that the death of Christ was necessary in order to pardon, how could God have done so in Lucifer's case? Does "the wages of sin is death" apply to men but not to angels?

Speaking of things which are not fair :), I've been trying to quite a long time now to get an answer regarding my question as to whether you agree with my assertion that there is no evidence that Jesus Christ taught that His death was necessary in order for God to legally forgive us. You have implied this, and I supplied your quote which did so, but then you wrote some things which caused me to doubt if you really meant to imply what your quote implied, so I asked for clarification. You have not clearly stated whether you agree or disagree with my assertion. This is one of two questions I've been trying to get an answer to. I'll leave the second one for now, pending an answer to this one.



In the judgment, according to her way of looking at things (it appears to me) the reason the wicked die and the righteous don't is because God judges and condemns sin in the case of the wicked (which results in a burden of guilt being brought upon them, which they cannot handle) whereas He forgoes doing this in the case of the righteous, because the righteous have met a condition. I'm not understanding your comment regarding Rom. 3 in this context.

Btw, Colin, do you recognize the Rosangela's view is very different from your own?