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: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.
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,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?
