Larry, if this blows up, I'm blaming you! :-D
Stan, let me start by asking you a question. How do you understand the the Atonement to have worked?
Larry, if this blows up, I'm blaming you! :-D
Stan, let me start by asking you a question. How do you understand the the Atonement to have worked?
One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan's banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God's Spirit.--3SM 84 (1903). {LDE 177.4}
The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony.--1SM 48 (1890). {LDE 177.5}
The enemy has made his masterly efforts to unsettle the faith of our own people in the Testimonies. . . . This is just as Satan designed it should be, and those who have been preparing the way for the people to pay no heed to the warnings and reproofs of the Testimonies of the Spirit of God will see that a tide of errors of all kinds will spring into life.--3SM 83 (1890). {LDE 178.1}
I have read this thread and the other thread attached and something I find most disturbing, no one is quoting Spirit of Prophecy.
We have become such a generation of "I want to know it now", we resort to reading the "quick" answers to our questions from authors who say they have spent the time in the Bible and SOP, instead of spending the time in the Bible and SOP ourselves. We end up glorifying other authors instead of glorifying the Gift of Prophecy in the Bible and Testimonies.
If third party participation is not appreciated, specially since they are not referencing writings of the inspired nature, they should be personal messaging this topic between each other.
Hello EJ:That sounds good to me.
I don't have a problem with anyone else participating. I would like to get through my four main points, which will probably take a week or so. I have no objection to anyone else participating. Perhaps we could compromise and after Stan and I stake out our basic positions, you could weigh in at that time. On the other hand, if you have questions or if I'm not being clear, I would certainly like to know as soon as possible.
Your invitation is very considerate. And I thank you very much at the gesture.
However, I don't have a clue what Maxwell teaches, and even after you and Stan finish your discussion on the main themes and ideas, I doubt that I would have anything to contribute that would shed much if any light on the conversation. From what I have followed so far in this thread and the other one referenced, I don't think you or Stan have a complete understanding of truth on this topic. And please don't take that as a critical slam against yourself or Stan. Because I can see that much, if not most, of what you and Stan believe is truth. But according to the things I have learned from the Spirit of Prophecy, it appears to me that some things are being interjected that shouldn't be. Again, I'm not intending to be critical. But this topic is one that the Spirit of Prophecy tells us we will still be studying forever into eternity. And to go into the great depths that the two of you are obviously headed, it makes no sense to me that the Spirit of Prophecy wouldn't be leaned on more heavily. To lean on the teachings of men upon a subject that we still won't understand after we get to heaven, instead of leaning on an Inspired Prophetess makes no sense to me.
If some of my surmising is incorrect, then I apologize. I know that sometimes the things I truly believe are not correctly understood as I have tried to portray them. So if my views of yours and Stan's beliefs are askew, then I apologize. I just feel that for a topic to go to the places it so far appears this one is going, and with the references the two of you will be using, I feel this should be a private discussion between the two of you and this should be kept out of "public" viewing.
If it does stay "public", who knows, maybe I'll make a comment after yours and Stan's conclusion.
I have read this thread and the other thread attached and something I find most disturbing, no one is quoting Spirit of Prophecy.
One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan's banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God's Spirit.--3SM 84 (1903). {LDE 177.4}
The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony.--1SM 48 (1890). {LDE 177.5}
The enemy has made his masterly efforts to unsettle the faith of our own people in the Testimonies. . . . This is just as Satan designed it should be, and those who have been preparing the way for the people to pay no heed to the warnings and reproofs of the Testimonies of the Spirit of God will see that a tide of errors of all kinds will spring into life.--3SM 83 (1890). {LDE 178.1}
We have become such a generation of "I want to know it now", we resort to reading the "quick" answers to our questions from authors who say they have spent the time in the Bible and SOP, instead of spending the time in the Bible and SOP ourselves. We end up glorifying other authors instead of glorifying the Gift of Prophecy in the Bible and Testimonies.
Your invitation is very considerate. And I thank you very much at the gesture.
However, I don't have a clue what Maxwell teaches, and even after you and Stan finish your discussion on the main themes and ideas, I doubt that I would have anything to contribute that would shed much if any light on the conversation. From what I have followed so far in this thread and the other one referenced, I don't think you or Stan have a complete understanding of truth on this topic. And please don't take that as a critical slam against yourself or Stan. Because I can see that much, if not most, of what you and Stan believe is truth. But according to the things I have learned from the Spirit of Prophecy, it appears to me that some things are being interjected that shouldn't be. Again, I'm not intending to be critical. But this topic is one that the Spirit of Prophecy tells us we will still be studying forever into eternity. And to go into the great depths that the two of you are obviously headed, it makes no sense to me that the Spirit of Prophecy wouldn't be leaned on more heavily. To lean on the teachings of men upon a subject that we still won't understand after we get to heaven, instead of leaning on an Inspired Prophetess makes no sense to me.
If some of my surmising is incorrect, then I apologize. I know that sometimes the things I truly believe are not correctly understood as I have tried to portray them. So if my views of yours and Stan's beliefs are askew, then I apologize. I just feel that for a topic to go to the places it so far appears this one is going, and with the references the two of you will be using, I feel this should be a private discussion between the two of you and this should be kept out of "public" viewing.
If it does stay "public", who knows, maybe I'll make a comment after yours and Stan's conclusion.
I don't claim to have all the answers in this debate, that is why I welcome input from anyone who wants to participate.
The greatest event in history--the death and resurrection of Christ- must be approached with great awe and reverence.
We must humbly study God's Word, and be faithful to the text. We must take at face value what God says, and not inject human philosophy which takes away from what is being said. If God says "that without the shedding of blood is no remission of sin", then I must accept this, without trying to explain it away.
Stan
EJ,Something that is becoming increasingly popular in mainstream Christianity, is that the "Sin Problem" was completely taken care of at the cross. And unfortunately, some of the teachings that goes along with "Everything was finished at the cross" has crept into a few Adventist circles.
Could you please be more specific what your concern is? If you have a problem with the author JI Packer's view of the atonement, then I want to hear it.
Something that is becoming increasingly popular in mainstream Christianity, is that the "Sin Problem" was completely taken care of at the cross. And unfortunately, some of the teachings that goes along with "Everything was finished at the cross" has crept into a few Adventist circles.
The views of Mr. Packer that you have posted so far seem to be heading in this same direction. Maybe I'm reading too much into this and maybe you will be covering this during a later post, but it seems that Mr. Packer might not believe in the Investigative Judgment and its relation to the atonement.
Though the cross is a very important aspect of the atonement, the atonement has just as much attachment to the Investigative Judgment.
In times past, I have been told that you, Stan, don't believe in the Investigative Judgment. If this is not true, and you do plan in later posts to associate the atonement to the Investigative Judgment, then my concerns are much less than before.
If you are going to quote mostly from Mr. Packer and if those things are not going to give any association of the atonement to the Investigative Judgment, then it's in my opinion that the moderators of this forum have the right, if they wish to do so as "thy brothers keeper", to request this topic be private.
EJ:
I think that we'll get to this issue a little later in the discusison. I hope to post a bit more this evening.
Slingshot,
Could you please give us an overview of why you think that Maxwell's view of the atonement is more Biblical than the traditional view of the atonement which I hold and have summarized earlier? What problem do you have with the idea that Christ died to pay the penalty due us for our sins, and that it required the shedding of the blood of Christ to effect this.
A substitionary atonement cannot be made to fit into the plan of salvation, which involves restoring the relationship between God and man. The substitionary atonement model cannot be reconciled with God's character, which is selfless love. I think that this is pretty clear Biblically when one considers the entire Biblical record.
I think it might be helpful in the interest of fairness to give you a chance to present a full overview of what you believe. If I have been unfair in representing Maxwell's views, then maybe you can help me out. It could be that I am just not getting what you and Maxwell are talking about.
Thanks for saying that. I don't think that you do fully understand Maxwell's position. It's not a "soft on sin" view that encouraged disobedience. It's actually a much more nuanced view and has a much stronger Scriptural basis than I think you're aware of. I'll do my best to clarify it over the next few days.
You mentioned that there was a problem with using the proof texts that I gave, so I would like to know what problem you have with the particular texts that I used?
I don't have any problem with the texts at all. I just disagree with you about what they mean. You're reading them from a substitionary perspective. When you read them, they all say "substitionary atonement" in your mind. I don't think that's what those texts really mean in their proper context.
If we just quote texts here and there without looking at all of what the Bible has to say on a topic, then we can get all kinds of things wrong. Just consider the story of the Rich Man & Lazarus. If I try and explain that Jesus really didn't mean that story to be taken literally am I ignoring that passage? Of course not. I'm merely explaining it by using other Scripture. That's what I propose to try and do.
Stan
why don't you just all present things as you understand them without any names attached ... and we go from there?
why don't you just all present things as you understand them without any names attached ... and we go from there?Newbie, the only problem with that is that the original purpose of the discussion was to make as clear as possible exactly what Graham Maxwell teaches and what the objections are that people have to those teachings. Maxwell's teachings have become a big issue in some places. The problem seems to be that people have a hard time dealing with it because few, if any have ever been able to explain exactly what it is that he teaches. Slingshot has said he has a pretty good grasp of Maxwell. The atonement is the central part of his teaching, but apparantly there are other aspects as well.
I understand Larry... okay... I think I understand the view and what it is based upon. I will take a back seat now.Don't take a "back seat." My point was only that we need to understand what Maxwell's views are and what the scriptural problems are with his views. It seems that usually when people present objections to his teaching, the response from those who support his teachings are "You are not understanding what he teaches." It has always been a red flag for me that a prominent Adventist Bible scholar such as Maxwell is apparantly is unable to make himself clear to so many people. I think it is important to look at since it is a divisive issue in some churches. We need to know how to deal with it if we have to.
Don't take a "back seat." My point was only that we need to understand what Maxwell's views are and what the scriptural problems are with his views. It seems that usually when people present objections to his teaching, the response from those who support his teachings are "You are not understanding what he teaches." It has always been a red flag for me that a prominent Adventist Bible scholar such as Maxwell is apparantly is unable to make himself clear to so many people. I think it is important to look at since it is a divisive issue in some churches. We need to know how to deal with it if we have to.
Please do proceed here! This topic is so timely for myself, as I am seeing some bad things happen in our church because of Maxwell's teachings. We just lost a dear pastor because of it, and another is coming in who supposedly has more experience in dealing with such things...also, our former pastor came to the church with no knowledge of what was happening, and it has grown out of his control, no matter how hard he tried. The new one knows what is happening, and has the support of the conference. But, it is the head elder who is promoting Maxwell, and he has quite a following. As Ellen White said, "I tremble for our church," we need prayer. The more I can learn on here, along with other studies, the more knowledgeable I will be about this matter.
Larry, I am glad that you're going into this with an open mind. :-D
Larry, I am glad that you're going into this with an open mind. :-DSlingshot, I knew you would appreciate my unbiased stand. :-D
I just hope our minds aren't so open that our brains fall out! :|Vickie, keep an eye out for leaking brains, and sound the alarm when necessary. :-)
I just hope our minds aren't so open that our brains fall out! :|
I was not aware that the teaching of the question of "God's Character" as has been focused on by Graham Maxwell, was so widespread in our churches until I found that Steve Wohlberg has written a book about it. The name of the book is "The Character of God Controversy." I have it and am over half way through it.
Also, if you would like to hear them, Steve Wohlberg has sermons on "The Character of God Controversy," on Audioverse. The link to those is here:
http://www.audioverse.org/people/236/steve-wohlberg.html
I have found these very helpful.
Yes, Stan, everyone who is being exposed to the Maxwell theories should also hear these sermons by Wohlberg, and read his book. Unfortunately, the man who is promoting Maxwell in our church just brushes all this aside, saying he already knows all this, and that it is presented wrong. Glad it was a help on here. Hopefully, others will listen to them. When the error is plain and easily discerned, it is not going to be so quickly accepted. But, the errors in this teaching are so mixed in with truth...well, I am seeing people in our church accept it, saying, "well, I don't see anything wrong in that." If someone presents these theories who knows how to talk, and if they have previously won the trust of the people, it is hard for the error to be seen. Very, very dangerous. Pray for our church!! Our churches everywhere!!
I read what Maxwell said, about "Why did Jesus have to die?" But, it really tells me nothing. WAS Jesus my substitute or not? DID He take my sins or not? Does a righteous God get angry over sin? Does God ever kill? Or does He just allow it to happen? Is God to be looked at just like any other friend? Or my Heavenly Buddy?
Romans 6:23 answers Maxwell very directly:
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hello Stan:
This text says nothing about God killing sinners.
Just this text alone has to mean that Jesus' death was substitutionary.
No, it doesn't. You are reading that conclusion into the text. That text basically says that sin leads to death. That is true. God said that in Genesis. "If you eat it, you will die." He did not say, "If you eat it, I will punish you and then kill you." There is a difference.
This whole concept was taught through the entire sacrificial system.
I agree that the sacrificial system was a teaching tool. I do not think that its main lesson was that God is kind and loving but that if you don't love Him in return, He will first punish you and then kill you.
To restore right standing to those who are redeemed, it was necessary for Christ to die to satisfy the demands of a broken law.
The Bible says that Abraham's right standing with God was restored through faith not through satisfying the demands of the law.
I agree that Jesus had to die but not that His death changed God's attitude toward us.
Jesus endured the very wrath of God in our place.
Jesus did endure God's wrath but not in our place as a substitute.
There is no other way to candy coat the gospel.
The word "gospel" means good news. I don't think that the choice of "love God or He will punish" you is "good news." Nor is that what the Bible teaches.
Romans 1:18
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
And this wrath of God will be manifested in an active way in the last judgment day in the lake of fire as Paul says in Romans 2:5,6:
Slingshot, correct me on whether Maxwell does or does not believe in a literal active punishment of the wicked?
If by that you mean hellfire as punishment I don't believe that he does and neither do I.
Also you have made a good start in your first few posts stating the positive side of the gospel, but we'll be waiting for the rest of the sin problem solution in the gospel according to Maxwell.
Correctly understood, even God's wrath is part of the Gospel -- i.e., it's "good news."
I am sorry that it's taking me so long to get the posts up but I am very busy and I am trying to be thorough. Thanks for your patience.
Stan
The last comments I will make on Maxwell's interview have to do with the idea of playing down the importance of the shedding of the blood of Christ and de- emphasizing the blood atonement as Maxwell does in this exchange:
So what about the blood in the making of the atonement which is so often spoken of in that audio-visual system, as you describe it? What role does the "blood of Christ" play in this atoning?
The emphasis on blood itself--if only we could rediscover what it meant to them in the beginning...Now we know what it became in due course of time...I saw an advertisement for a book this week--I was tempted to get it--it's a whole history of blood atonement in paganism, and other religions as well as Christianity. Blood has been used all through history, "in many and various ways." The Bible refers to the blood; I just want the truth about it. What is the meaning of his shedding of his blood? It really means he died. He died. So we want to talk about his death. It's interesting that if we talk and talk and talk about the significance of his death and don't use the word "blood," some say you don't believe in a "blood atonement." That's extraordinary to me. It's as if there really was "power in the blood," which is haematolatry.
----------------------
He calls the Biblical view "haemotolatry" or a form of idolatry. That is why in a Loma Linda Sabbath School class, you will not hear beautiful hymns such as "Power in the blood" There is power, power wondrous working power in the blood of the Lamb". This hymn would be heresy to these intellectuals who don't want to talk about blood of Christ.
Now let us look at a whole host of texts which emphasize the blood of Christ and the saving power of his blood.
If this was such an unimportant truth, then why does Jesus talk about the significance of his death in terms of the blood of the New Covenant?
Matthew 26:26-29
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
--------------------
I would like to ask Maxwell: Is it Hematoloatry or a form of idolatry to celebrate the Lord's Supper by drinking the wine which represents Christ's blood for the remission of sins? If Jesus didn't want us to continually remember the blood atonement, he would not have us do this. There is a sense in which there is power in the blood when we partake of the Lord's supper. A special blessing comes to us when we partake of the elements in commemorating what the Lord did for us in taking the punishment due us for our sins.
The Lords supper is a fulfillment of Leviticus 17:11
11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
-----------------
It is Christ's blood which makes an atonement for our souls
Much more on the blood atonement in future posts.
Stan
Stan:
I am sorry that I have not been able to post more.
I work full time and spend about 90 minutes a day just getting back and forth to work. I preach two or three times per month and also lead two weekly Bible studies. I also teach a History course at a local college. I just don't have time to post as much as I would like. I will get around to it as soon as I can.
In the meantime, you're ripping Maxwell when you don't understand what he's saying or why he is saying it. I can answer every point that you've made but would like to do so after I've made my case as a whole. Otherwise, we're just gonna fling proof texts at each other and not get anywhere.
I hope that you think this fair.
Does some of it go back to AF Ballenger? I found something on his apostasy that sure had some of the same flavor!I'm not familiar with this person but you may be right...
many of these Maxwell theories, Fordisms, and the rest all have the same basic origins....
That's a pretty serious charge. Why do you believe that to be true?
SS... wanted to give you a chance to post what you have first... do you have anything more for us?
Does some of it go back to AF Ballenger? I found something on his apostasy that sure had some of the same flavor!Yes Dora! The New Theology teachings of today are not new in the sense that they are newly invented. They have been pressing to come into our Church for many years. People like Des Ford attempt to justify Ballenger's views, and believe that he and others were badly treated; just as Ford's followers today claim that Ford was badly treated. All of these theories are designed to do away with the Sanctuary truths.
That's a pretty serious charge. Why do you believe that to be true?
I'm not familiar with this person but you may be right...
Yes. I'm working on it. Thanks for your patience.
slingshot are you still there? Some want me to go ahead but just wondered if you had something to share first..... 8-)
Indeed, A F Ballenger did go astray, and into apostasy, by preaching that Jesus went into the Most Holy Place when He went back to Heaven. He was one of the men who Ellen White saw in the Salamanca vision 5 months before the event occurred. (read Omega 2, chapter 6.) BTW, are you maybe thinking of Ellen White's nephew, Frank Belden, who wrote many of our beautiful early pioneer hymns? He had a disagreement with the church about those very hymns, the copyrights, or something he thought was wrong. I would have to look up the details on him.
We have had "some of the brightest lights to go out" in our church from the beginning. Anytime that someone "rashly denied the light behind them and said that it was not God that had led them out so far...the light behind them went out, leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and lost sight of the mark and of Jesus, and fell off the path down into the dark and wicked world below." Early Writings"p15 An angel told EW that bright light was the midnight cry given in 1844.
Apostasies in our church are not new, neither are the new theories, we are told that the Omega will be much worse than the Alpha. Is that what we are facing?
Yes. I am still here. If you could wait a bit longer, I would appreciate it. I've put in about forty hours at work this week already! I am working on my posts. Thanks.
Slingshot, still waiting ....
"The primary purpose of the cross was not to pay a legal penalty for sin but to destroy Satan
Thus far, I hope that I have established three things:
1) The sin problem is primarily a relational problem; and
2) God’s goal is to restore our faith (trust) in Him;
3) When we trust God and are willing to act on that trust, God counts as righteous.
That is the Gospel in a nutshell. Now comes the question: What role did Jesus death play in all this?
Slingshot, the above is only part of the gospel. It sounds very nice, but there is nothing about the fact that the wrath of God is to be poured out on those who do not repent. Sinners are alienated from God, because they have violated that holy law. The holiness of God demands justice and a penalty to be paid for sin. You have stated that you don't believe in literal punishment that God will inflict on sinners in the judgment of the Lake of fire.
In Eden, God told our parents that if they ate of the tree, "You will die." That is very different from saying "If you eat of the tree, I will kill you." I do not believe that God destroys sinners at the end as an act of punishment for violating His law because that it not what the Bible teaches.
Romans is the book of the Bible that most exhaustively deals with the gospel of salvation, and right off the bat in Romans 1 it starts out by saying that the WRATH OF GOD is to be poured out on sinners and that the whole world stands condemned to die.
Romans 1:16-19
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Romans 2:5,6
5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
You are quite correct -- God's wrath will be poured out on sinners at the end. But you have not defined what the Bible means when it speaks of God's wrath. That will be the subject of my next post.
------------------------------
It is God who will mete out the punishnent of the last judgment.
The language that you and Maxwell use bothers me because it is not scriptural language, and the obvious passages of scripture which argue against your point are conveniently ignored.
I have not ignored anything. I can address each and every text that you have raised. I have not been able to do so up to this point because I have lacked the time. I am going as fast as I can.
I will wait for your answers regarding the "good news" about the wrath of God. That is not good news to those who will experience it.
The Biblical truth about God's wrath is good news because it shows the true character of our Father. He is not vengeful or cruel. The destruction of the wicked will not be something that God does to them but something that they do to themselves.
The penalty of sin is the second death--the lake of fire. Jesus experienced the equivalent of the second death for our sins so we don't have to experience the awful consequences of our disobedience.
The remedy for this condition is stated clearly in Romans 3-5, and then developed on through the end of the book.
I agree with this statement.
Maxwellites do not use the language of the book of Romans or Isaiah 53, and that is the problem.
That is simply not correct.
I will address each and every text that you have raised. Just because I have not addressed them does not mean that I cannot. Let me finish laying out my case and then I will address your points.
Stan
Slingshot, I agree with much of what you have said, but I have a problem with these lines. Maybe I am not understanding, so can you please tell me how what you have said reconciles with these quotes from the SOP:
.......
It seems to me that justice demanded a penalty...out of God's love for us.
The doctrine of the Substitutionary atonement has been a time honored truth from the early church fathers:
As were teachings in support of Sunday worship and the immortality of the soul. The quotes below prove nothing.
The Epistle to Diognetus 9:2
1) If Jesus' death was about paying a penalty, who did He pay the penalty to?
2) Do you believe that Jesus' death changed the Father's attitude toward us?
3) Would you rather be judged by Jesus or by the Father?
Let me leave you with a couple of questions for thought. I am not asking that you reply, though of course you may if you like. I would at least like you to think about these, however:
1) If Jesus' death was about paying a penalty, who did He pay the penalty to?
2) Do you believe that Jesus' death changed the Father's attitude toward us?
3) Would you rather be judged by Jesus or by the Father?
I do not think that it is widely believed, at least by Seventh-day Adventists, that God the Father is harsh and vengeful in contrast to Jesus, who is merciful and forgiving.In fact, Larry you have brought up the heart of the whole issue here.... the root of the problem with most of the theories about God that are partial and not complete.
I would add a quick comment. The question "who would you rather be judged by, Jesus or the father? implies a false contrast and contains a straw man argument. Jesus said that "I and my Father are One," The destruction of the wicked by God is an act of mercy. Destruction of Satan and all of the wicked is the only way to preserve the safety and the holiness of the universe. I do not think that it is widely believed, at least by Seventh-day Adventists, that God the Father is harsh and vengeful in contrast to Jesus, who is merciful and forgiving.
1--I'm not sure I should be butting in at this point, but it occurs to me that it may not be necessary that the penalty be paid to anyone. Sin demanded death, and Jesus stepped into our place and took the punishment.
Sin is an attitude or rebellion, a lack of trust in God. It can't demand anything.
Similarly, the Law cannot demand anything.
Who is it that demands that sin be punished with death? The Father?
If that's correct, then God demanded the death of His Son so that He would not have to kill us.
Under this view, what God is saying is basically: "You stand condemned as a sinner. I've provided a way out for you and want you very much to take it. But if you don't, I will have to kill you." Force, or the threat of force, can produce fear but it can never produce what God wants, which is love and trust.
2--The death of Jesus didn't change the Father's attitude toward us, it changed our status before Him from condemned rebels, to pardoned sinners.
Sinners condemned by whom? The law? The Father? Jesus?
If the real issue of the Great Controversy is about God's character, then it seems to me that this issue of is the utmost importance.
3--It doesn't matter which I would rather have. Scripture says that it is Jesus who will judge us. This is the best plan because He became one of us and has an intimate knowledge of our struggles, having experienced them Himself.
these are excellent questions.... not sure any of us really understand this in depth
#2 yes, we were all under a death decree and Jesus came to redeem us by His life and death.... Jesus is and was always our go between to the Father (i.e. mercy seat).... OT prefigured to the cross and NT afterward....
The substitutionary model teaches that the Father requires us to approach Him through an intercessor. But Jesus took a different view in John 12.
25"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. 26In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
#3 we are really judged by Both but Jesus is in charge....
John 5:22
22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,
John 12:47
47"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.
I would add a quick comment. The question "who would you rather be judged by, Jesus or the father? implies a false contrast and contains a straw man argument. Jesus said that "I and my Father are One," The destruction of the wicked by God is an act of mercy. Destruction of Satan and all of the wicked is the only way to preserve the safety and the holiness of the universe. I do not think that it is widely believed, at least by Seventh-day Adventists, that God the Father is harsh and vengeful in contrast to Jesus, who is merciful and forgiving.
I am troubled by the questions...there seems (to me) to be an underling premise to each.....
God says in Isaiah 1, "Come let us reason together...." There is nothing illegitimate about these questions. I suspect that the problem is that they are very difficult to answer for those who subscribe to a substitionary view of the atonement.
#1 Seems to me..."if" Jesus had to die for sinners....there was "payment" being made...
Really? Where does it say that Jesus died to pay a legal penalty? We assume this because we are thinking in a substitutionary mindset.
Again, I ask the question: If this is true, who did Jesus pay the penalty to? If the substitutionary view is correct, this should be a simple question to answer.
I hasten to add that I do believe that Jesus did die for us, but not to pay a legal penalty. He died to show us the truth about God's character and to expose Satan's lies. By doing so, He reconciled God "to things on earth and things in heaven." (Col. 1:18-23) If the Cross was about paying a legal penalty, then how did it reconcile things in heaven, who have not sinned, to God?
there was a demand made on the sinner...either the sinner owes up......or...the sinner excepts the gift of God IE.....the life and death of Christ in his stead. We may not like this arrangement....however, this is God's arrangement.
I don't believe that the substitutionary view accurately describes the Gospel, which is God's arrangement.
Now.......as a sinner, I must conclude that either God (Father, Christ, Holy Spirit) is just being mean and demanding or incredibly generous.....after all, it is His universe.... As was said "sin is an attitude................and attitude will decide
#2 Why ask such a question? (Jesus changing the Father's attitude toward us) I am interested in the thought process behind this question. I realize, it can be unnerving that God will do His "strange act" and those who resist Him will suffer this deed......however....either we believe in His kindness, even toward those who choose not to be saved, or, we see Him in a way other than how He describes Himself (Jesus said "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father"). The human mind takes "leaps"...I think this question produces this kind of leap......(not the purpose of the question.....just the nature of the question).
The reason that I ask the question is that the substitutionary view is that Jesus' death changed God's attitude toward us from one of wrath at sin to acceptance. That's clearly not Biblical which is just one of the problems with the substitutionary view.
#3 5T pg 743 "Holiness is agreement with God" God The Father, Christ, The Holy Spirit are "Holy"...They are always in agreement with Eachother. This really sets up a false premise that there is a difference between them simply by asking the question.......
Again, the substitutionary view assumes that difference. You are right that it is a false premise. The purpose of my question is to point that false premise out.
This really takes us to the main human problem..."to believe or to not believe God."
You are right that the main question is whether or not we trust God. But the trust that God is interested in is not blind. He gave us the Bible as evidence. Understanding the plan of salvation as I do now, I am more than ever convinced of the beauty of God's character. I love Him more and trust Him more than I ever have.
Just my thoughts... :-)
Deborah
Quote from: slingshot
1) If Jesus' death was about paying a penalty, who did He pay the penalty to?
2) Do you believe that Jesus' death changed the Father's attitude toward us?
3) Would you rather be judged by Jesus or by the Father?
-------------------------------------------
It was Jesus who took the judgment due us in our place. But those who reject the sacrifice of Jesus will suffer the terrible wrath of God in the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:8
8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
------------------------
Slingshot,
Do you believe that those who reject Christ will meet their end in the lake of fire? Or does the above text mean something else?
Yes, those who refuse to trust God will be destroyed.
I think I hear you expressing the concern that people should have a choice to reject the infinite sacrifice of Christ without having to live in fear of divine wrath meted out against them?
I never said that. God's wrath is very, very real.
There are so many who would just love to hear the "good news" that they are not going to suffer the wrath of God. If there is no threat of punishment, then they will be happy to be content to live with the freedom to live how they like.
The good news about God's wrath is not that it does not exist. It is that God's wrath is simply God letting the sinner go, abandoning him to his choice to try and exist without God. This will result in the sinner's destruction as a consequence, not as punishment.
The threat of punishment has the effect of restraining evil at least to some extent.
That is true. Unfortunately, that's not what God wants. If He did, He could ensure obedience with rapid, severe chastisment every time the law is broken. What God wants is for us to internalize the principles of His character -- to write them on our hearts (Jer. 31) -- so that they are a part of us. The last thing that God wants is for His creatures to be afraid of Him. John "wrote:
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." (I John 4:8)
Stan
these are excellent questions.... not sure any of us really understand this in depth
#2 yes, we were all under a death decree and Jesus came to redeem us by His life and death.... Jesus is and was always our go between to the Father (i.e. mercy seat).... OT prefigured to the cross and NT afterward....
#3 we are really judged by Both but Jesus is in charge....
Slingshot, The verses you quote do not say that God's "turning them over," is the action of God's wrath.
Actually, I think that they do. Romans 1 is clear that God's wrath is God letting the sinner go. Romans 4 is clear that when Jesus became sin and hung on the cross, God let Him go.
The action of God's wrath, is His destruction of sin by fire.
I agree that sinners will be destroyed by fire but not as act of punishment or as payment of a legal penalty. If Jesus did pay our penalty, as the substitutionary advocates suggest, then why wasn't He burned if that is that is what God's wrath consists of?
Interestingly, you don't find the notion of an active destruction by fire in Romans 1, nor even in Revelation. We read those ideas into the text. God's wrath is letting the sinner go. Death comes as a consequence and not as a punishment.
This will necessarily include all sinners who have not accepted the salvation that God has provided. The "turning them over" in the verses you quote is God's allowing them to freely choose their own way, even though it is a path that leads to ultimate destruction by God's wrath.
There is a difference. God is not passive. He will actively destroy sin and sinners. By equating "turning them over" with God's wrath as if it was God's only resposne to the unrepentant sinner, you are "begging the question."
It is not God's only response to sin. It is His ultimate response to a sinner who will not repent. The Bible is clear that God disciplines those that He loves. He will try to correct us. But if we refuse to be corrected, He will sadly let us go.
In case there are some who are unfamiliar with it, in formal argumentation, "begging the question" is when a debater states as fact that which he is trying to prove. If the opponent fails to challenge the statement, he has in effect conceded the point.
I don't think that I did that. I'm just quoting the Scriptures and letting the Bible interpret itself. Substitutionary atonement advocates say that God's wrath toward sin will result in active punishment. The Bible is pretty clear that God's wrath means that He lets the sinner go. He let Jesus go and Jesus cried out "My God, my God why are you forsaking me?" He did not cry out "My God, My God why are you killing me?"
But if I did, didn't you just do the same thing? "There is a difference. God is not passive. He will actively destroy sin and sinners."
Hi Newbie! It is good to be able to argue with you on this forum as well :-)
I hope we DO understand these questions but i wonder why some of them were asked.
Hello Robert:
The reason that I asked these questions is that their answers have implications for the substitutionary atonement view.
That view says that sin demands the payment of a legal penalty and that Jesus paid that penalty for us.
That view is inconsistent with the answers that most Christians would give to those questions.
The second question asked if the sacrifice of Jesus changed God's attitude towards us. Perhaps we could put the question in another way. Does God love us because Jesus came and died for us? The answer is NO! it was BECAUSE He loves us that he sent Jesus to die for us. God's attitude of love for us does not change. but it changes US and our relationship to the Father. When we accept that gift of the Son of God we are no longer guilty and therefore our relationship to the Father is changed, and it changes OUR attitude of enmity to God to that of being sons and daughters of God.
Question number 3 asks if we would sooner be judged by Jesus or by the Father. I think it would be better to merely state the truth of the matter of Judgment. When Jesus was on earth He said:
(Joh 8:15) Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
(Joh 8:16) And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
He also said:
(Joh 12:47) And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Jesus was not in this world to Judge us, but is the situation changed now that He has gone back to Heaven? Note the following:
(Joh 5:22) For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
This brings us to the Judgment scene as described in Daniel 7. The ancient of days (the Father) sits on the throne, and Jesus is brought unto Him (Daniel 7:9-10, 13, 14). Jesus is the one who makes the decision as to whether He acquits or rejects each candidate for Heaven. The Father accepts the decision of His Son and that is only just since it was His Son who gave His life for each one of us.
I see no point in asking who we would sooner have to Judge us. The Father and the Son are One, and the Judgment is satisfactory to both as justice is done.
If the Father and the Son are One, and I agree that they are, then to whom did Jesus pay the penalty for sin?
John 1:29 (King James Version)10K are you are denying symbolism of the the Old Testament day of atonement ceremony? Maybe I am not understanding your post.
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. It looks like Jesus is taking away sin...not dumping them on Satan and burning them up.
the wages of sin is death..... because a righteous God cannot permit sin to contaminate the universe as it has done here....
Slingshot,
When you quoted from Romans 1, you left out Romans 2:5,6
5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
-----------------
This is a clear text saying that God will repay sinners according to their deeds.
Hold on a minute Stan. The text does not say that God will "punish" anyone. If a sinner persists in rebellion, God will sadly give that sinner up and they will be destroyed. The death of the sinner is not something that God does to them as punishment. It is a consequence that they bring on themselves. God made Jesus "to be sin" and God did not "punish" Him -- God let Him go. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" That is not punishment.
I remember the final chapter of Great Controversy also says that sinners will suffer varying degrees of pain and suffering in hell based on their deeds, with Satan suffering many days longer beyond the other most heinous sinners.
I can see a way that could happen.
Do you believe that God will repay according to their deeds?
What is your belief about the nature of the punishment of the wicked?
I will post on that next.
Stan
Slingshot, your arguments ignore that which is clear through out the Bible. God will actively destroy sinners. Whether you want to call it wrath or punishment or whatever you prefer, the destruction of sin and sinners is the will of God and would not happen without the action of God Himself. You say that the fact that Jesus did not die by fire proves that he did not die in place of the repentent sinner. That ignores the fact that Jesus is God. God died in the place of sinners. His death was sufficient to cover the claims of His own justice, demanded by His own law. The manner of His death was significant only in that it was slow and most humiliating, but it was His death that paid the price, not the method.
Slingshot, your arguments ignore that which is clear through out the Bible. God will actively destroy sinners. Whether you want to call it wrath or punishment or whatever you prefer, the destruction of sin and sinners is the will of God and would not happen without the action of God.
The destruction of sinners is most assuredly not the will of God. God does not desire that any should perish. He does not want to let anyone go. I agree that their destruction is caused by an action of God but it does not occur as a punishment. Rather, it is a consequence of the sinner's own conduct.
You say that the fact that Jesus did not die by fire proves that he did not die in place of the repentent sinner.
That is not quite what I said. What I said is that the Bible teaches that God's wrath = letting the sinner go. I think that is clear from Romans and from Jesus' experience on the cross. God's active punishment of sinners with fire does not seem to fit either the description of God's wrath in Romans or Jesus' experience on the cross.
Let us assume that Jesus did pay our penalty, that God punished Him on our behalf. Where does it say that specifically in the Scripture? Jesus said He was forsaken. Romans says that God gave Him over, just like an unrepentant sinner. Where is the Biblical evidence to show that God punished Jesus as the payment of a legal penalty?
That ignores the fact that Jesus is God. God died in the place of sinners.
Now you are begging the question! :-D I don't believe that He died in our place. He did die for us, to show us God's character and to expose Satan's lies. That is different from dying in our place. And his death reconciled "things in heaven and things on earth" to God. (Col. 1:18-25). How could a death to pay a legal penalty for human sinners reconcile things in heaven to God? And who was the penalty paid to? No one has answered that yet.
His death was sufficient to cover the claims of His own justice, demanded by His own law.
So, is it your position that the penalty Jesus paid was paid to the law? Where is the Scriptural evidence for this view?
The manner of His death was significant only in that it was slow and most humiliating, but it was His death that paid the price, not the method. God exercizes both mercy and Justice.
Paid the price to whom or to what?
Hi Newbie:You have forgotten ss that Lucifer and all of heaven and earth were once in this state of being and it failed.
I agree that sin leads to death.
I also agree that sin will not arise again.
But I don't think that will be because God does not allow it. Sin will not arise again because all of the rational creatures in the Universe will have God's Law written on their hearts. They will not have to be compelled or frightened into obedience. Instead, they will trust God and will be willing to do whatever He asks of them.
Slingshot.......
Perhaps our view of Sodom and Gomorrah are different...did God rain fire down on them or do you see it different?
I remember there was a pastor in Australia (FT Wright) that did not believe God Himself destroyed S&G..he believed God withdrew His protection and a volcano under the ground was then free to explode and destroy the inhabitants.....
What is your view?
Thanks,
Deborah :-)
You have forgotten ss that Lucifer and all of heaven and earth were once in this state of being and it failed.
God will not permit it to happen again ever. Sin and Satan will be finished and only those willing to be transformed will remain.
I am sorry my dear friend Newbie, but Sling Shot is right. It is not that God will not allow sin to rise again the second time. He knows that it will not because every soul will have been tested to the utmost. Only if they pass the test by refusing to sin, even in the Time of Trouble without a Mediator when they are faced with death, will anyone be granted eternal life. They will have PROVED that they will not sin in all eternity. There will not be an iota of compulsion from God in ANY matter. ALL will perfectly reflect the image of the Godhead.
Slingshot.......
Perhaps our view of Sodom and Gomorrah are different...did God rain fire down on them or do you see it different?
That's an excellent question!
Let me be clear: God has put people to sleep in emergencies.
As in the case of the Flood, with Sodom God confronted a culture that was thoroughly given over to evil. He told Abraham He would spare the city if there were only ten righteous people in it. There was only Lot and his family and even their "righteousness" is disputable. In the case of the antediluvian world, only eight people boarded the Ark. The rest were so bad that "every imagination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually."
Situations like this presents God with a dilemma. Like a parent, He wants His children to love and trust Him. Displays of divine power tend to make people afraid and lead to more rebellion. But, as with a parent whose child is running toward a cliff, God will raise His voice and thunder if the situation demands it. But that's not His preferred method of operation.
In those circumstances, God will act decisively and has put sadly put many, many people to sleep. the Flood, Sodom, the first born of Egypt, Aachan, the Canaanites, and others are examples of this phenomenon.
It's important to note that those peole are not dead as in "the wages of sin is death" but are only sleeping. God has never "killed" anyone, at least not from His perspective. But He has sadly put people to sleep.
But this is different from God's wrath as explained in Romans 1, which consists of giving the sinner over to ultimate destruction. Only one being has ever felt God's full wrath and that was Jesus.
I remember there was a pastor in Australia (FT Wright) that did not believe God Himself destroyed S&G..he believed God withdrew His protection and a volcano under the ground was then free to explode and destroy the inhabitants.....
What is your view?
Certainly not that a volcano was involved. That's just silly. :-D
Thanks,
Deborah :-)
When you quoted from Romans 1, you left out Romans 2:5,6
5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
This is a clear text saying that God will repay sinners according to their deeds.
Slingshot,
I know you are an attorney and you sure are good at parsing words just like Bill Clinton "It depends on what the meaning of is is"
I would really prefer that you use another example. :-D
That text above clearly states that it is God "Who will render to every man according to his deeds"
How can you possibly say that this text isn't saying that God does the punishing?
I am not "parsing" anything. Let's look at the language of the text. You believe that "render" means punish. It does not.
The Greek word translated "render" is "apodidomi" which is a variant of the word translated "gave them over" in Romans 1 when God's wrath is defined. It means "give away, give over, give up, reward, render, requite, restore, reward, sell, yield." Not a single variant of the word having anything to do with punishment at all.
The meaning of the text in the context of Romans is clear. God's wrath is God giving the sinner over, letting them go.
Respectfully, if anyone is reading anything into the text it is you. Punishment is just not there. Giving them over is.
Romans 12:19:
19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord
----------------------------------------------------------
Yes, God says he will take vengeance on those deserving of wrath
So, you believe that righteous people should not seek revenge because God says not to so that He can really get the wicked person? What about "Love your enemies" and "Pray for those despitefully use you that you may be sons of your Father in Heaven" Who "makes the rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous"?
God's "vengeance" is to treat the sinner gently, to love them, to woo them back. If anyone ever deserved God's vengeance, it was the men who killed His Son, yet Jesus prayed for their forgiveness as they tortured Him.
I don't think that God's vengeance looks anything like our vengeance. None of God's people will be pumping their fists and cheering as the wicked are consumed.
2 Thessalonians 2:11,12
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
-------------------------
Oh, such harsh language.
Stan, respectfully, this does not become you. I have not mocked you or your beliefs.
This doesn't sound like the God who doesn't damn or punish
The reason that God "sends them a strong delusion" is v. 11, quoted above, is set out in verse 10: "They perish because they refuse to believe the truth and so be saved." This fits right in with Romans 1. The sinner refuses to be won over, refuses to consider the evidence, refuses to listen to the wooing of the Holy Spirit. So, God has no choice but to sadly respect their freedom and let them go.
2 Thess 1:
6Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
---------------------
One MUST obey the gospel, or God will take vengeance in flaming fire on those who do not obey.
Those who reject God and refuse to believe the Truth will be destroyed. But not as punishment. I will address this when I explain my understanding of the destruction of the wicked.
God has the right to make the rules. The Maxwellites may not like what the Bible says about God's wrath, but there is no way to explain it away, as we are witnessing on this thread.
Stan
Situations like this presents God with a dilemma.
You can't be serious. The omniscient One faced with a dilemma? He knows the end from the beginning. A dilemma is something for which one is not prepared, and for which one is unsure of the best solution. God is always prepared for any eventuality, since He knows the end from the beginning. He is never unsure of anything.
Ss have you presented everything? Should I begin?
Slingshot...just a thought here...in a jest...are you saying...
God's wrath will ultimately fall on "sin." If a man/woman chooses sin, then they will suffer God's wrath "becasue" they refused God and stayed "in" sin?
Thanks,
Deborah :-)
Slingshot, The substitutionaly death of Christ is foundational to the plan of salvation.
There you go again, begging the question. (You really should not have taught me that one.... :-D)
What you are really doing is attacking my conclusions by asserting your own conclusions. What you have not done is shown that I have misused or twisted the Scriptures.
The death of Christ is foundational but not His substitutional death. Jesus had to die to reveal God's character and Satan's lies.
You have to ignore the meaning of the sacrificial system in the OT and plain words in the NT.
Not at all. The meaning of the system, among other things, is that sin leads to death.
You also have to reject Ellen White, who stated many times that Christ was our substitute.
She also says many things that undermine the substitutionary theory.
Your use of words, as Stan said, iseems to be a kind of sophistry [Sophistry? Really?] which questions words and phrases which are intended to give us humans a hint of understanding of the deep mystery of salvation and the atonement, which we are told will be the subject of our study throughout eternity, and which angels desire to look into.
I am disappointed by this statement. So, we can't understand the plan of salvation? Is it a riddle, wrapped inside an enigma? Faith is the evidence of things not seen. God has given us the Bible as evidence. He wants us to make informed choices. Blind faith is not really faith at all.
It is perhaps a bit ironic for an Adventist, with all of our theological depth, to reject a stream of inquiry as sophistry because "it's a mystery" we can't understand.
If it all really comes down to "God is powerful. He is in charge. We have to trust Him" then why are we going through all of this? The death, the sickness, the misery? God could have simply exercised His power and wiped Satan out and had done with it.
The question in the Great Controversy is God's character. Nothing could be more than important that. I believe the Bible teaches that the atonement was just that -- an at-one-ment -- designed to reunite and reconcile God and His creatures. the reconciliation is based on their understanding His character. After all, how can a person have faith, which is what God really wants, in a Person they don't know?
If the questions I've posed are sophistry as you say, it should be easy to puncture them with Scripture.
If I misstated anything, or twisted the Scripture, point it out to me so we can discuss it.
But to simply say "You're wrong and practicing sophistry" when I've quoted and applied so much Scripture seems a bit unfair.
The Bible gives us enough information that we can know that Jesus died for us and without his death we would be doomed. To claim that this was merely a demonstration, even a demonstration of God's love, reduces the force and significance of Calvary.
In a situation where the truth of God's character is everything, I would not say that Jesus' demonstration of God's character was "merely a demonstration." In fact, Colossians 1 says that the cross reconciled God not just to sinful man but also "to things in heaven." The cross was about much, much more than just us. "Reduces the force and significance of Calvary"? I don't think so.
This teaching is a confusion of the gospel.
If that is true, it should be a simple matter to show me from the Bible where my understanding of God's wrath or what happened to Jesus on the cross is wrong.
There are countless statements in the Spirit of Prophecy writings that directly contradict your theology.
I will present my ideas on the destruction of the wicked but if you'd like to post your ideas, please go ahead.destruction of the wicked and Satan and his evil angels is kinda key to the whole thing.... so I will wait for you to post this understanding
That's a fair point.
I did not mean that God does not know what to do.
I meant that God's actions, which are necessary, run the very real risk of making Him misunderstood. That has, in fact, occurred.
Your points regarding God's omniscience are, of course, correct.
Slingshot,
Do you believe the apostle Peter when he says that the destruction of the wicked is just like what happened at Sodom?
2 Peter 2
4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
------------------
He didn't just put those people to sleep, He incinerated them to ashes, yet they will be resusrrected again to suffer a similar fate, except the lake of fire will be even a more intense last judgment. God used the destruction of Sodom to make an example as to what will happen to the wicked. To say that this kind of judgment is just putting people to sleep is ridiculous.
Stan:
Ridiculous? I'm just applying the Scripture. The Bible repeatedly refers to the First Death as a sleep.
23When Jesus entered the ruler's house and saw the flute players and the noisy crowd, 24he said, "Go away. The girl is not dead but asleep." But they laughed at him. 25After the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took the girl by the hand, and she got up. Matt. 9:23-25
11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up." John 11:11
When the Bible says that the wages of sin is death, it is referring to the Second Death.
Because the Second Death has not occurred, God has not killed anyone. He has, however, put many people to sleep.
Slingshot wrote:
Situations like this presents God with a dilemma. Like a parent, He wants His children to love and trust Him. Displays of divine power tend to make people afraid and lead to more rebellion. But, as with a parent whose child is running toward a cliff, God will raise His voice and thunder if the situation demands it. But that's not His preferred method of operation.
---------------------------------------------
Slingshot, this presents a very low view of the Holiness and Sovereignty of God.
Actually Stan, I think that it is your view that does this. In your view, it appears that the only way can win the love and trust of His creatures is to frighten them with displays of power. That has never been God's preferred method of operation.
God's glory is His character and not His raw power. In Exodus 33, Moses wrote:
18 Then Moses said, "Now show me your glory."
19 And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence.
In that culture, names were chosen to reflect a person's character. So, what God really means is that He will display his character in Moses' presence. That's how God responded when Moses wanted to see His glory.
Stan
wrote:
--------------------
Yes, sleep is used as a metaphor for death, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the persons were killed by God.
Soli, do you mean to say that everyone of who die are killed by God?
Robert
SDG: One of Slingshot's 3 questions from page 10 is: "Do you believe that Jesus' death changed the Father's attitude toward us?
The answer is yes, if we take at face value what Paul says above about us being children of wrath prior to the new birth.
It is the sacrifice of Christ which is the fulfillment of the blood sacrifice system of the OT which makes us acceptable to God if we trust in this sacrifice:
Robert:I do not see it as changing GOD'S attitude towards US Sola. but as changing OUR attitude and relationship to HIM. God says:
(Jer 29:11) For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
Robert: God has ALWAYS had thoughts of peace towards us, even when we were at enmity with Him.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Robert: We suffer God's wrath not because He loves us any the less or because of His attitude toward us. In beholding WE become changed. God is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and therefore, while we are sinners, God's wrath will automatically be against sin where ever it is found. If it is found in us, unrepented of, we will be destroyed along with the sin. Jesus died for us so that we will no longer have sin attributed to us and therefore God's love can flow unimpeded to us. As Ellen white days, God does not love us because He sent Jesus to die for us, but He sent Jesus BECAUSE He loves us.
Robert
This is from the song of Moses, which was apparantly dictated to Him by God according to verse 19.
(39) See now that I, even I am He and there is no god with me; I kill and I make alive, I wound and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand,
(40) For I lift up My hand to heaven and say, I live forever,
(41) If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment, I will render vengence to Mine enemies and will reward them that hate me,
(42) I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh, and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginnings of revenge upon the enemy. (Deuteronomy 23: 39-42)
One of Slingshot's 3 questions from page 10 is:
2) Do you believe that Jesus' death changed the Father's attitude toward us?
The answer is yes, if we take at face value what Paul says above about us being children of wrath prior to the new birth.
Well Stan, I am not sure quite what to say....The Bible is pretty clear that God's wrath is letting us go. Romans 1, Romans 4 and Jesus on the cross all make this very clear. In spite of this, you continue to use references to "wrath" to refer to punishment.
A better approach more consistent with Romans is to understand this text that unrepentant sinners are children of wrath in that if they do not repent God will let them go. You are entitled to your own opinion, of course, but if you are going to simply ignore the Biblical definition of God's wrath, I'm not sure quite what to say.
It is the sacrifice of Christ which is the fulfillment of the blood sacrifice system of the OT which makes us acceptable to God if we trust in this sacrifice:
Why? How does Jesus' blood sacrifice help restore trust, expose Satan's lies and reconcile God with His created beings? You offered absolutely no context for your claims. In fact, you've basically admitted that you can't do so but that we have to accept this system because God ordained it.
Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Slingshot,
What is the plain obvious meaning of the above text?
The NIV translates that text: "Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people...."
In any event, the text means that Christ's sacrifice revealed Satan's lies and God's character and made possible the reconciliation of God to all of His creatures, those in heaven and on earth. When God made Him to be sin ("bear the sins of many")The text says nothing about punishment.
If we reject Christ's sacrifice that is acceptable to God, then we are still children of wrath.
This whole discussion reminds me of the story of Cain and Abel. Abel brought the sacrifice of an animal in obedience to God, but Cain thought he could do better by not having to bring a blood sacrifice, and brought a sacrifice of the fruit of his hands which God rejected.
We may not like the fact that God required the blood sacrifice of his Son, but if we are to be saved, we must believe that Christ bore our sins in place of us as the scripture so plainly teaches.
Any theory of the atonement which diminishes in any way the sacrifice of Christ, represents another gospel which will cause people to be lost rather than to be saved.
Why will believing as I believe cause me to be lost? Please explain.
I believe it is your theory that minimizes the Cross. God, for some reason, demands blood for sin. Jesus paid that penalty so God's not angry at us anymore.
Or: The cross demonstrated God's character and Satan's lies and made possible the reconciliation of God and all of his creatures throughout the Universe. This view does not diminish the Cross. It gives it a greater and universal significance.
How do you understand that Cross reconciled God to things in Heaven as stated in Colossians 1:18-23?
Stan
I don't think anyone is denying that the cross put an end to Satan's works....What, exactly, do you mean Newbie? Seems to me that Satan is pretty active still. I would say that the the event on the cross made manifest the lies of Satan and that he is a defeated foe but not yet dead.
Concerning the "sword" that is mentioned, it is true that God often has used the armies of Iraael's adversaries to punish them. But in the covenents and curses that were presented to Israel from God through Moses, God identifies the "sword, famine., pestilence and wild beasts as His acts of punishment should Israel apostasy. Those who say God never kills will say that it is God simply letting things run their course without His protection which Israel forfeited by their frequent apostasies. However, there are also occurences of angels with threatening swords such as the incident with Baalam and the donkey. God is in control regardless of what happens or how it happens. God is not passive.Absolutely Larry! However, I would agree that most of the time we bring wrath upon ourselves through our disobedience. If we drink poison we will suffer death without God directly intervening.
Robert,Amen! Thanks for the clarification Stan. I have not yet learned just how to follow all of these threads.
If you look back another post or 2, you will see that I was talking about the people that were killed in the flood and at Sodom. They were killed by God.
Stan
Robert, it is true that we become changed by the sacrifice of God, but it is also true that God is propitiated by the sacrifice of Christ.I agree with you doctor Stan. It is just that I see it more of a change of ACTION by God rather than a change of attitude. We have the choice of which action we make possible for God to exercise toward us and still maintain His justice. I appreciate your thoughts. I am very slowly getting the hang of this forum. It is a bit different from the others I am on.
You can't be serious. The omniscient One faced with a dilemma? He knows the end from the beginning. A dilemma is something for which one is not prepared, and for which one is unsure of the best solution. God is always prepared for any eventuality, since He knows the end from the beginning. He is never unsure of anything.That seems mighty reasonable. What is termed a dilemma for God is already solved as it arises. And it arises before it happens and thus it is solved before it happens. That is why the plan of salvation was always in place from eternity. Hard for our finite minds to comprehend.
What, exactly, do you mean Newbie? Seems to me that Satan is pretty active still. I would say that the the event on the cross made manifest the lies of Satan and that he is a defeated foe but not yet dead.
I will make my post on the destruction of the wicked as soon as I am able.
Slingshot,me too :-D when you are able... I know you are busy
I am still hoping to read your clarification on this point
Thanks
Stan
Slingshot,
I am still hoping to read your clarification on this point
Thanks
Stan
God's love is personal and focused. Jennings' theory of God's love as a "natural law" would seem to make it an impersonal force, like gravity to which he compared it. God's love is not an impersonal force. His 10 Commandment law is an expression of His Character and His love and it is the covenant between God and every individual who is willing to enter into the covenant with Him. The covenant was guaranteed by God's gift of His son to die in place of each of us, for our sins.
Apparantly, it is a common complaint about Maxwell's teachings that people don't really understand what he is saying. To me, that is a red flag. They seem to be saying that Jesus didn't really have to die and that God does not destroy sinners. Out the window goes over 2000 years of Christian theology. Am I exaggerating? I probably don't understand their teaching. :-)
It is sometimes said that the gospel can be understood by an 8 year old. If that is true, it certainly rules out Maxwell and Jennings' teachings.
Spectrum Magazine published an excellent article by Desmond Ford on the problems of the Maxwellian teaching. He wrote a commentary on the Sabbath School lesson for November -December 2008, and he praised the SS lesson quarterly for taking a strong stand on the atonement:It is good that Ford agrees with Angel Rodriguez' lesson, but I don't believe that Ford is controversial. He is simply an apostate. Nothing controversial about that. At least for Bible believing Adventists. :-)
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/node/1251
I know the author is controversial but his commentary is not controversial on this topic.
Stan
Apparantly, it is a common complaint about Maxwell's teachings that people don't really understand what he is saying. To me, that is a red flag. They seem to be saying that Jesus didn't really have to die and that God does not destroy sinners. Out the window goes over 2000 years of Christian theology. Am I exaggerating? I probably don't understand their teaching. :-)
It is sometimes said that the gospel can be understood by an 8 year old. If that is true, it certainly rules out Maxwell and Jennings' teachings.
Even apostates are right occasionally. Even Satan can quote Scripture. We know Ford's theology, so I don't feel the need to wade through his material to search for an occasional gem of truth when there are so many other good sources of truth, sources which are not suspect from the outset.
Anything from Spectrum is suspect. They claim to be SDA, but they are not friendly to manly of our core doctrines. In some ways they are more dangerous than Proclamation. At least we know what to expect from Ratzlaff, et. al.; they exist for the sole purpose of attacking us.
We really have wandered off topic, haven't we? :nono:
Raven,
My intent was not to wander off topic. If you read the article in question, it is right on topic. When time is spent attacking messengers, then we go off topic.
L
I found the article while doing a google search for the Ministry magazine article above and thought it contained important points to understanding the atonement. Sorry for any offense.
Stan
God's love is personal and focused. Jennings' theory of God's love as a "natural law" would seem to make it an impersonal force, like gravity to which he compared it. God's love not an impersonal force. His 10 Commandment law is an expression of His Character and His love and it is the covenant between God and every individual who is willing to enter into the covenant with Him. The covenant was guaranteed by God's gift of His son to die in place of each of us, for our sins.Reminds me of what Walter Veith says about the Catholic Church and how they promote "Nature Law". He shows the connection with those promoting "Going Green". It's been a while since I've watched it, so the details are fuzzy. I know you've watched at least part of the Rekindling the Reformation so maybe you might remember better than I.
Reminds me of what Walter Veith says about the Catholic Church and how they promote "Nature Law". He shows the connection with those promoting "Going Green". It's been a while since I've watched it, so the details are fuzzy. I know you've watched at least part of the Rekindling the Reformation so maybe you might remember better than I.Yes, the Catholic church uses the idea of "natural law" in some of their theological statements having to do with economics and politics. I recall that Walter Veith shows in certain of his presentations, one position of the Catholic church is that according to "natural law" individuals do not really own goods or property, therefore goods and property can be lawfully and guiltlessly appropriated by a person in need, even if it is by stealth or force. Thats quite a doctrine!! There are other ways they use the term but I don't recall what they are off hand. Walter Veith quotes John Robbins' book "Ecclesiastical Megalomania" The Economic and Political Thought of the Roman Catholic Church. I think that a lot of that information is in that book.
Stan, I love to sing that song. You left out the chorus, which may not have been in Isaac Watts' original words.
At the cross, at the cross
where I first saw the light
And the burdens of my heart rolled away
It was there by faith I received my sight
And now I am happy all the day.
There are a number of variants to that hymn. There are 2 in "The Sacred Harp" which was published in 1844. Neither of them have this chorus and each of the melodies are different.
"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}
Some questions to ponder & perhaps reply to:
What happens to our sins when we, by faith in Christ's shed blood, come to Him & ask forgiveness?
How does God deal with our sins?
How does God deal with the sinner?
Job.14
1. [17] My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity.
Pss.103
1. [12] As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
Micah 7:
[19] He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.
Dan.9
1. [24] Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Yes, When we confessed our sins, Christ took the condemnation of the law, our penalty upon Himself, and He bore our guilt! We stand before Him as if we had never sinned. But, if God has forgiven our sins -- cast them into the depths of the sea -- why is He keeping the record of our sins? This is troubling to some & they don't see why God is still dealing with sin in the sanctuary, when Christ has already paid the penalty.
Larry's cat came back after 16 days! And he fed it! But, what happens if our sins keep coming back because we keep feeding them? Do we just keep sinning & God keeps forgiving? What happens if probation closes & we are still sinning? What provisions has God made so this won't happen to us?
In the words of the song,
Jesus paid it all, All to Him I owe
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.
The life/ garden / trial /cross = one side of His robeeven folded the napkin before He left the tomb :-)
The empty Tomb & onward till Pentecost = the other side of His robe
Sanctuary completed and emptied and no longer needed = the sash / belt / buttons of His robe
Someday on the New Earth it will be said
He covered all the details and missed none.
Really.........What is the Atonement all about?
The cross plays a part, but it doesn't play the same part as what it did in generations past. The Atonement began Oct.22, 1844. In generations previous to 1844, the cross played a different role.
Lev. 23:27-"Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement:..........and ye shall afflict your souls and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD (this is a sin offering, an act of repentance)."
vrs. 28"........for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.(this is the act of AT-ONE-MENT between us and God"
vrs. 29"For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among His people.(this word afflicted for the most part is being ignored today. Coupled with the word atonement, this is the process of letting God change our characters into His character.)"
It is very popular today to focus on the cross and ignore the work of atonement and the work of being afflicted. It is believed that because so much less was expected from people past (Luther, Calvin and other reformers; Paul, Peter, John the Revelator, etc.) that no more than that is expected of us. Never in any generation past has God called His people to as high a standard as what He calls His people during the Anti-typical Day of Atonement.
Eph. 5:25"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." Christ died for us because He loves us. But it's not His love that sanctifies us, it's His word through the power of the Holy Spirit that sanctifies us. Love is a by-product we learn and obtain from being sanctified. We live in a special time, the Day of Atonement, in which Jesus does something in us that He has never done for people in generations past. In the Most Holy Place in Heaven, He is making special provisions for His people to take on His character like never before.
And what does Lev. 23:29 and 30 say will happen if we don't let Him change our characters into His? ".....he shall be cut off from among His people.........the same soul will I destroy......"
Really.........What is the Atonement all about?
The cross plays a part, but it doesn't play the same part as what it did in generations past. The Atonement began Oct.22, 1844. In generations previous to 1844, the cross played a different role.
Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Hebrews 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
"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}I may be wrong, but I think EJ's statements have to do with restoretruth's last question, which is a very important question.
Some questions to ponder & perhaps reply to:
What happens to our sins when we, by faith in Christ's shed blood, come to Him & ask forgiveness?
How does God deal with our sins?
How does God deal with the sinner?
How can God be just & forgive the sinner?
Is Christ's shed blood even necessary for God to be able to forgive?
How important is it for us to understand Christ's work of atonement in the sanctuary in heaven?
I may be wrong, but I think EJ's statements have to do with restoretruth's last question, which is a very important question.very important... we are living in the day of atonement... should be consecrating our souls, fasting from all unhealthy foods, and dressing with modesty, living in humbleness of character....etc
How important is it for us to understand Christ's work of atonement in the sanctuary in heaven?
I may be wrong, but I think EJ's statements have to do with restoretruth's last question, which is a very important question.
I may be wrong, but I think EJ's statements have to do with restoretruth's last question, which is a very important question.Thank you Larry. Yes, in part the statements I gave were in that response. But also they were in response to the feeling I was getting from the lack of knowledge, understanding and explanation of what the Atonement is all about. More and more frequently, from our pulpits is preached the messages of Justification. And less and less frequently is preached Sanctification and Atonement. This thread was giving me this same impression. My statements were not to lessen the importance of the Cross, but to bring the Atonement into harmony with the Cross and to broaden and deepen the understanding and importance of the work Christ does in The Most Holy Place through the Cross today.
If that were true, then what is the lesson in the Feast of Unleavened Bread, what is the lesson in the Feast of First Fruits, Feast of Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement? It breaks my heart when I hear people talk about their salvation and this wonderful relationship they are having with Christ, and when you ask them about the Sanctuary Message, they have no clue what you are talking about. I think to myself "Really, you are having a relationship with Jesus and you have no clue what He is presently doing for you in the Most Holy Place? Then what on earth kind of relationship are you having?" That's not aimed at you Stan. I don't recall you ever saying anything like this. I'm speaking of people I have talked to personally, so please don't take this as me aiming it at you.
The emphasis in the New Testament is on the atonement which Christ completed on Calvary