The Meaning of Jesus' Death
Edited by Nic Samojluk
The following introductory paragraph from an article authored by Hyveth Williams prompted me to participate in the blog that her article generated. As of the day of this posting, I counted 240 comments posted by the participantes, and 30 of those postings are mine. This shows how important this topic is for Seventh-day Adventists. I made a selection of a good number of those comments and included them in this forum for your benefit, but you can read them in the original source by accessing the Spectrum blog site I am providing the link for below.
"It is a fact that in the midst of life we are faced with death. It’s also a strange kind of irony that after a lifetime of defeat sprinkled with a few thrills of victory, we gather at the memorial service or graveside of the “dearly departed” with eloquent eulogies and tributes. At such times, it seems that all the deceased’s works were not only good, they were magnificent. Their virtues are magnified and shortcomings overlooked as if they were never part of the relational equation. Due to its permanent nature and the toll the loss takes on the living, it is difficult to find virtue or meaning in death. Yet, when it comes to Jesus, there are many meanings of his death." Source: http://www.spectrummagazine.org/articles/sabbath_school/2008/06/03/the_meaning_his_death
Dear Hyveth,
Are you writing that since Jesus died the second death (separation from God) before the physical death (sleep death) and performed a few actions in-between, that you believe one can survive the second death for a short time physically?
Posted by: arlyn (not verified) | 04 June 2008 at 9:44
*********
"3. This all means that our salvation was bought and wrought on the cross, not in the grave."
Neither the cross nor the grave were all-sufficient. Thousands of people were crucified by the Romans during this time. Without the wonderful Sunday morning Resurrection, there would be no Christianity today. It is the SOLE reason for Christianity.
The stories and illustrations about the meaning of Jesus' death were not considered at that time, but took decades before they gradually became part of the Christian belief system. The Gospels, written at least a generation afterward, were an effort to show that Jesus had a miraculous conception, birth, life, death and resurrection, and convince the Jews of that meaning. No one at that time believed that Christ was the Messiah, but it was the Gospel writers, many years later, who took pen in hand to convince their readers that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of a coming Messiah. Isaiah's prophecy of a young woman's conception and birth was taken out of its context in support of this and many more illustrations were given to support this evolving understanding.
Paul used the metaphor of Jewish sacrifice and atonement that his hearers were all familiar with. But he also used many other analogies in support of the meaning of Jesus. By the time the Gospels were written, the historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements, giving the meaning of Jesus for his followers. The first Christians saw him as a new Moses, new Joshua and the Jews in Palestine believed that he was the Messiah, the Son of David--before he was killed.
Mark, the earliest Gospel, presents Jesus as a perfectly normal man with a family of brothers and sisters, but no mention of any notice about his birth; in fact, his story begins at Jesus' baptism. Jesus himself never claimed to be God, but the Son of God--a title used by kings in the OT. He called himself the Son of Man.
There is the ultimate question: Is salvation impossible for mankind without Jesus' death? If so, to whom was the ransom paid? Who received the sacrifice? How was his death for our benefit? Neither Paul nor the other NT writers ever attempted a precise, definitive explanation of the salvation they had experienced.
All through our lives as Christians we have sung about the blood of the lamb that redeedmed us; but the explanations posited have never fully explained how blood is salvific.
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 04 June 2008 at 11:37
*********
To attribute every word in the Bible to God saying it, removes any human in the choice of words within it, the choice of which writings to include in the Bible, and that God never actually wrote a single word in the Bible. Men wrote what they thought about God, no less than we today write as though we knew what God said and meant many years ago.
Is that the inerrant and infallible view of the literality of the Bible? Sounds much like it.
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 04 June 2008 at 12:53
*********
The earliest Jesus-believers, led by Jesus' own brother James, continued their lives as Jewish believers, very attached to the Temple and its blood rituals. They obviously did not view Jesus as the antitypical sacrificial lamb, offered up for the sins of the world. These were the people who knew Jesus best and who apparently never did not hear him say that he had come to abolish the Torah (in fact, he said the opposite in Matt. 5).
In the Synoptics, God is perfectly capable of forgiving sin without recourse to blood (think the Lord's Prayer). By arguing that God needs to see blood run--that of his own incarnated flesh--in order to forgive, turns forgiveness into a quid pro quo scheme.
Paul later on turned Jesus, the ambiguous Messiah, into universal savior, and he clearly saw Jesus as having been killed in our place.
Posted by: Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 04 June 2008 at 1:53
*********
The Christ event is a package deal!
The virgin birth, the childhood, the baptism, the temptations in the wilderness, The ministry, the challenges of tradition, the Garden, The trial, The cross, the grave, the resurrection,
The walk to Emmaus, The ascention, The Upper Room, meeting Paul on the Road.
The narrative is clear and compelling. My hope is built on nothing less. He lived, died, and rose again for me! Tom
Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 04 June 2008 at 2:32
*********
How does the death of Christ satisfy God? Is a God that satisfies Himself moral? Is a God that accepts the death of an innocent for the guilty, moral? Is violence at the cross the only way to end sin?
How can blood pay for sins? Or is that just a literalistic motif? and is the assumed premise true that a just/righteous law ought to demand death/blood for eating a wrong fruit?
Posted by: arlyn (not verified) | 04 June 2008 at 5:36
*********
Many good questions here. Let me add some. In what way did/does the death of Christ "change" God? Is this a prerequisite before he can save/forgive? What kind of judicial systems permits substitution in capital cases? How are concepts of right and justice affirmed by the view of payment of penalty--or the big words like appeasement, propitiation, expiation and so on?
Most of all, what kind of God do we see here? And are we not in danger of splitting the Trinity by setting one element of the Godhead against the other?
Too many questions maybe. But we're supposed to be thinking here, not reciting the catechism...
Jonathan
Posted by: Jonathan Gallagher (not verified) | 04 June 2008 at 6:30
*********
Arlyn,
The death of Christ satisfies God because the rules of His government state that life is conditional upon obedience to his moral law. Failure is not an option. There is no excuse for disobedience. Once Adam and Eve sinned they would have to pay for their disobedience with their lives. Jesus volunteered to give his life as a substitute for their lives. God accepted this substitutionary death.
Posted by: JB (not verified) | 04 June 2008 at 7:56
*********
JB wrote:
"The substitutionary death concept goes all the way back to Adam and Eve and the sacrificial lamb. The story of Cain and Abel is in the Bible because Cain was the first human to reject the substitutionary death of the Savior."
That is how many readers interpret it today but no one until after Jesus' death had even thought of such a symbolic meaning. What one "sees" retrospectively, in any given event, depends solely on his method of interpreting. That is not a conclusion ever given from Scripture. If so, where is Cain's offering explained in such a manner?
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 05 June 2008 at 7:16
*********
Much confusion over the meaning of Jesus' death comes from misunderstanding and misapplication of the OT sacrificial system. So maybe it's time to take another look at that--my little contribution is here:
http://www.pineknoll.org/jg/45-god-in-other-words/185-futile-offerings-g...
So what do WE mean by "there's power in the blood"?
More questions!
Jonathan
Posted by: Jonathan Gallagher (not verified) | 05 June 2008 at 7:57
*********
Who is effected by the death of Christ, does God need to change?
Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Blood has two main Biblical meanings, life and violent death. Your conscience is the target of the blood. To change your view, your hostility toward God. The blood is the life of Christ, the life of God who offered forgiveness even as people were killing Him. The life of the one who came back from the Grave and who ever lives as our advocate with the Father. Who is the fullness of God. God changes us. The life and power of God cleanse our conscience from worthless works to the works of the God who is alive and promises to give us life.
Stop this nonsense about Jesus suffered the Second death for which there is zero Biblical support, Stop this nonsense about Jesus punished by God's wrath, for which there is no New Testament support (the article above had to go to Isaiah for that one, New Testament writers did not seem to pick that up, strange). We have so far to go and we so distort God that we should be ashamed at ourselves for making God out to be unjust (then calling it just) and incapable of forgiveness unless He gets His pound of flesh (even though both Old and New Testament say to freely forgive).
For more on this week's lesson go to http://cafesda.blogspot.com/
Posted by: rc | 05 June 2008 at 9:24
*********
"So does God need to see blood in order to forgive? NO, but we do."
Posted by: Sirje | 05 June 2008 at 5:00
Who declared that we "need" to see blood? That was the sentiment of those who lived when the sacrificial system was currently used. How long has it been since Christians used sacrifice?
None.
The concept is outdated by 2000 years, and yet because it was repeated and had meaning for those so long ago, we still use it an analogy which is minus all meaning today. Isn't there a contemporary illustration that we postmoderns are capable of understanding? The Bible writers were certainly in tune with their world. Have we lost all touch with our world today?
To understand forgiveness, who needs to see blood? When you have wronged someone, or you have been wronged, do you, like Shylock, demand a pound of flesh, necessitating blood, in order for it to be effective?
Pat, you said: "Of course those are done away by Christ�s sacrifice once and for all. But one can not ignore how the right relationship is made available only through the blood of Christ."
And then you proceed to use only OT statements which were still in effect at that time. Wake up! We're living 2500 years later and they are NOT in effect today; else why would Christ have fulfilled them? All such sacrifices are obsolete.
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 05 June 2008 at 10:53
*********
Pat wrote:
"I Saw your site too Ron and since you quoted EGW on the lesson how do you respond to the quotes I offered Jonathan?
Regards,
pat
PS. Perhaps the best understanding of propitiation is "the turning away of wrath."
First Propitiation is not turning away from wrath unless one holds to the pagan understanding of appeasing a god. Which is why modern translations say atoning sacrifice or sacrifice of atonement. (what God did to bring us toward reconcilation)
As for Ellen White, being she was a product of her time and her understanding and was largely based upon Christian traditions I don't see any real need to take her statements and set them into the concrete of doctrine for all subsequent Adventists. If the Bible is our standard we don't need her foisted upon us or to have other Adventists use her as if we must accept her statements as if they came from God. Adventism has to get past Ellen White as well as Ellen White's traditional Christian view of Jesus pleading before God saying my blood my blood. God is on our side and not because Jesus was punished by God to pay our penalty but Because God loves us and wants us to love Him, and Jesus is the full revelation of that love, a love that never diminished even when rejected by men.
Posted by: rc | 05 June 2008 at 11:35
*********
With all our Western mindset and its emphasis on materialism, it's just too easy to miss the symbolism. We think of "objective blood" rather than look for its meaning. When we read that Jesus came to give his life a ransom for many, we want to know to whom the ransom was paid, how the transaction was accomplished, and what the currency was! Instead, "it cost God a lot!"
As to the problem of "splitting the Trinity" I would see this as far more than a "straw man." While we may make much of Jesus' pleading, we need to remember John 16:26...
Jonathan
Posted by: Jonathan Gallagher (not verified) | 05 June 2008 at 1:45
*********
Hi!
I can forgive someone who has wronged me without requiring that somebody be tortued and killed. Can't God do as much?
Dave
Posted by: davidrlarson | 05 June 2008 at 4:47
*********
Yes, I do understand the symbolic meaning of "blood" but it is used and sung so often that there are those who DO take it literally and need the death of Jesus to assure them.
Like Dave, if I truly forgive someone I have no need for them to pay penance. That is taken literally by the Roman Catholic church where penance is doled out to demonstrate a sinner's true forgiveness. Why, if it a necessity as claimed by the Protestant church, that there is not a penance required? Did Jesus "pay" a penance? We speak so glibly but have much difficulty actually giving specific examples of how that should work. When we can begin to avoid the cliches and think of how the salvation jargon sounds to the totally unintiated, we may be able to illustrate better.
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 05 June 2008 at 5:14
*********
Pat,
You sound like "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."? Who cares how God looks through our self-contradictory, irrational, legalistic, exacting version of how the death of Christ satisfied God? God says it's just. He says He considers me righteous, that's just by definition. Reality is an inconvenience."
I'm not trying to change the Bible, I don't deny the necessary flesh and blood death of Christ. And I believe God is just in his salvation plan. But since the most common "classic" atonement theory is NOT- I am willing to change my understanding of how salvation works.
There will be more atonement theories in the future- because our understandings grow. No theory will ever be the last. Because no theory is perfect in encapsulating reality. And the best way to grow is to ask why and how to our present paradigm and watch the cliche's fall off.
Posted by: arlyn (not verified) | 06 June 2008 at 5:55
*********
I agree with the following statement posted by Aage Rendalen on 04 June 2008 at 1:53:
"In the Synoptics, God is perfectly capable of forgiving sin without recourse to blood ... By arguing that God needs to see blood run--that of his own incarnated flesh--in order to forgive, turns forgiveness into a quid pro quo scheme."
I just checked my Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which defines forgivenes as: "To grant relief from payment of a debt." Based on this definition, I conclude that If Jesus' death was a payment for my sins, then God cannot claim that my sins have been forgiven. If I have a traffic ticket, and a friend of mine makes the payment, would it make sense for the judge to say: "I forgive you for your speeding ticket?"
In the Bible, blood stands as a symbol of life, this is why we find the following statement in the New Testament: "We are saved by His life." A dead Saviour is no saviour. Only a living Saviour can save and forgive.
Demanding the death of the most innocent being in the universe does not solve the sin problem. A just God could not demand the death of the innocent. Substitutionary justice is morally acceptable in civil cases, but not in criminal ones. You do not restore the moral balance by punishing the innocent, you rather compound the injustice.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 07 June 2008 at 10:01
*********
Nic, you have abandoned the truth, and substituted your own logic. The salvation plan for God's Son to die was there before our Earth. It may confound your logic, but it is what saves.
Posted by: RDS (not verified) | 07 June 2008 at 10:37
*********
Here is another very interesting book on this subject: "Stricken By God?" Here is from the introduction:
"We considered him stricken by God. But...
Did God pour out his wrath on his own Son to satisfy his own need for justice? Or did God-in-Christ forgive the world even as it unleashed its wrath on him? Was Christ's sacrifice the ultimate fulfilment of God's demand for redemptive bloodshed? Or was the cross God's great "No" to that whole system? The church is asking these questions afresh. And from every stream of Christianity, answers are coming."
Posted by: Brad Cole (not verified) | 08 June 2008 at 6:46
*********
Nic,
Interesting comments. And also interesting that the reply is to "flame" you for "abandoning the truth," rather than offering any counter-arguments.
Any theory of the atonement (and note they are all theories!)must not only seek to explain the way in which we are at-oned (reconciled, brought back into harmony etc), but also must not violate the fundamental nature of the moral and ethical laws God set in place for the universe. The problem with too many models is they do just that, and so misrepresent God in the process. In fact, some are so "pagan" they are clearly have their origins in the accusations of Lucifer himself which are the reasons for the great controversy.
Much of the problem is understanding what went wrong in the first place--i.e. what sin is, and what the penalty is for sin. God did not say "the day you eat thereof I will execute you"--in other words, an extrinsic and applied penalty. He simply said "you'll die"--as an inevitable consequence of breaking the relationship of trust. As J B Phillips translates, "Sin pays a wage, the wage is death." It's not God paying the wage, or executing his Son to provide him with some substitute penalty that he himself imposed.
It's not hard to see why so many turn away from such a presupposed picture of God. Like the poet Lord Byron, who wrote, "The basis of your religion is injustice. The Son of God the pure, the immaculate, the innocent, is sacrificed for the guilty."
Abraham was so right when he argued "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" The whole of the great controversy is a demonstration of the rightness of God, so why would we want to believe in any concepts that put God in a wrong light?
Jonathan
Posted by: Jonathan Gallagher (not verified) | 08 June 2008 at 7:04
*********
Zane: Thanks for your comments. We are like blind men trying to describe what an elephant looks like. All the Atonement theories are helpful, but they are imperfect, and all of them can be supported by Scriptural texts and the writings of Ellen White. The moral influence explanation for Jesus' death, which many theologians reject, is supported by one of the clearest quotations from the writing of Mrs. White. It goes like this:
The plan of redemption is not a clever maneuver the Lord devised to balance the heavenly scales of justice. The cross is a window giving us a glimpse of the suffering God was subjected to since sin and rebellion raised their ugly head. If you want the actual quote, I can dig it out. Some years ago I wrote a monograph entitled: "Redemption in Spite of the Cross," and it is built around this concept taken from the pen of our inspired prophet.
Ellen White also has another statement asserting that God's original plan was for Israel to accept their Messiah, and for the nation of Israel to eventually grow and encompass the whole world. God did not plan nor require that we kill Jesus. We did this inspired by the Devil, who has been a murderer from the beginning. It is high time that we place the blame for Jesus' death on the shoulders of God's enemy instead of the Creator.
The substitutionary theory of Atonement trumps the notion of true forgiveness. How can God claim that our sin has been forgiven, if the penalty was fully paid by Jesus? If a friend of mine pays for my speeding ticket, it would make no sense for the judge to say: I do forgive you for your trespass.
Before his death, Jesus said to his disciples: Now you are clean. He did not say, once I am dead and have paid the price for sin, you will be clean. They were declared clean before his death! Before his death, he said to the paralitic: "Your sins are forgiven!" He did not say, your sins will be forgiven once I have been crucified.
There is a text in the Bible which tells us that we are saved by His life. The notion that God could not forgive sins unless God saw innocent blood flowing from his veins is an impefect way of describing the plan of salvation. God did not earn the right to forgive sins after the cross. He had this right all along. The "price" for forgiveness was the suffering imposed on God by sin and rebellion. Suffering is a natural result of rejected love. When a child rejects the love os his parent, suffering takes place and the parent earns the right to forgive.
The Bible tells us that "in all their aflictions, God was aflicted." By the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem, God has suffered more than enough as a result of sin and rebellion. He experiences the pain for the sins of all his children. Suffering, the natural result of sin and rebellion, was fully experienced ["paid"] before Jesus' birth. There was no need for Jesus to die, since God had suffered more than enough already.
God allowed for Jesus' death to take place that we might have a glimpse of God suffering since the inception of sin, but he did not require this. Satan did! God did not earn the right to forgive sins at the cross. Ellen White even says that when Lucifer sinned and asked for reinstatement, had he been willing to take a lower position in heaven, God would have forgiven him.
When Lucifer rebelled, God suffered as a result of his sin and rebellion, the natural result ["price"] for sin was already experienced ["paid"] by God's suffering, and God had the right to forgive his sin if he truly repented of his misbehavior.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 08 June 2008 at 7:09
*********
Thanks, Jonathan! I saw your comments after posting mine. God bless!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 08 June 2008 at 7:13
*********
You're welcome, Nic. Also enjoyed your analysis. It might be good to get the EGW material out for those who would like to take a closer look.
Oh, and by the way, to everyone on this discussion--next quarter we get to do 3 months on the concept of the Atonement. So plenty of time for a "free, conversational study of the Scriptures"!
Jonathan
Posted by: Jonathan Gallagher (not verified) | 08 June 2008 at 7:21
*********
Jonathan: I will follow your advice. Here is Ellen White's quotation in support of the moral theory of the Atonement: "The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its inception, sin has brought to the heart of God. ... Suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity [Education, p. 263]. For some reason, many theologians prefer to cite only the other passages where she uses the substitionary explanation for the atonement.
Likewise, said theologians prefer to ignore the many biblical passages that offer strong support for the moral explanation for Jesus' death on the cross. If Jesus' suffering did not begin with his incarnation, then when did it begin? It began with Lucifer's rebellion. Jesus, the Lamb of God "was slain from the foundation of the world." [Rev. 13:8]Christians prefer to see the cross--God's suffering--as an event in history, when in fact it is a process that began with Lucifer's rebellion which will end with the eradication of evil from the universe.
Jesus said: "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me." Notice that the Lord did not say, If I be lifted up, God will be able to forgive your sins! In the Old Testament, we find the following statement: "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." [Zech. 13:8] Notice the use of the past tense by the translator. Why, because Jesus had already been figuratively on the cross, subjected to suffering and pain since the inception of sin.
Note: I have to run an errand I will continue this when I return!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 08 June 2008 at 9:50
*********
Posted above:
"Jonathan: I will follow your advice. Here is Ellen White's quotation in support of the moral theory of the Atonement:"
I think those of you who try to use EGW on this will not be too successful because you will find that the moral influence idea of atonement is commonly incorporated within the other atonement views. This is readily apparent when one reads the many authors from the reformation on. They will hold to Penal/Substitutionary atonement, and they will also express how the love of God is revealed in this process. So pointing to a few EGW statements that indicate moral influence is par for the course of any penal/substitutionary writer, who very clearly EGW was.
Posted by: rc | 08 June 2008 at 10:15
*********
Nic,
Despite assertions to the contrary, writers on the atonement, especially from the Reformation and its tradition, missed much. That's why EGW wrote so much on the cross as the answer to the whole sin problem AS IT AFFECTED THE UNIVERSE. This perspective is almost entirely lacking in other views of the atonement. I find no other writers, for example, who insist that the atonement was for angels as well! Note the following:
�But the plan of redemption had a yet broader and deeper purpose than the salvation of man. It was not for this alone that Christ came to the earth; it was not merely that the inhabitants of this little world might regard the law of God as it should be regarded; but it was to vindicate the character of God before the universe. To this result of His great sacrifice--its influence upon the intelligences of other worlds, as well as upon man--the Saviour looked forward when just before His crucifixion He said: `Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me.� [John 12:31,32] The act of Christ in dying for the salvation of man would not only make heaven accessible to men, but before all the universe it would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan. It would establish the perpetuity of the law of God, and would reveal the nature and the results of sin.� Patriarchs and Prophets 68,69.
�To the angels and the unfallen worlds the cry, `It is finished,� had a deep significance. It was for them as well as for us that the great work of redemption had been accomplished. . .
�Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion.� Desire of Ages 758.
�That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. . . .(QOD 680)
�The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven. . . .
�The plan of salvation, making manifest the justice and love of God, provides an eternal safeguard against defection in unfallen worlds, as well as among those who shall be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.� Signs of the Times, December 30, 1889.
There's a lot more of this, but the examples will need to do.
Best,
Jonathan
Posted by: Jonathan Gallagher (not verified) | 08 June 2008 at 11:09
*********
Posted by: rc | 08 June 2008 at 10:15
"I think those of you who try to use EGW on this will not be too successful because you will find that the moral influence idea of atonement is commonly incorporated within the other atonement views.
My Response: Right you are, the moral influence is contained in the substitutionary theory of Atonement, and the reverse is true as well. The difference is that, as Tom has stated above, with the legal view of the cross, we have to thank Satan for making salvation possible, which is not the case with the moral explanation for Jesus' death. Besides, with the moral view we free God of any complicity in the death of the most innocent being in the universe.
In criticizing the use of Ellen White for the support of the moral influence of Atonement, you are ignoring all the statements found in the Bible that favor this explanation for the cross. In my previous post I did mention Revelation which describes Jesus as the Lamb of God "slain from the foundation of the world", which agrees with White's view that God's suffering began with Lucifer's rebellion. Would you deny this concept? All the Bible testifies to the fact that the Lord suffers when his children suffer.
It states that "in all their aflictions, he was aflicted" [Isaiah 63:9,10]. It does not say that in all their aflictions, he will some day be aflicted. Bible translators use the past tense. It states that "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." [Zech. 13:8] Again, the past tense is used to describe the suffering of the Messiah. The same could be said about the classical Messianic description of the suffering servant found in Isaiah 53. Read it again, and notice that translators used the past tense to depict the suffering of Jesus. What is wrong if I use Ellen White to second what the Bible teaches?
We have a tendency to accept the idea that certain biblical predictions were contingent on human response. Jonah is the classical case. I would suggest that the prophetic descriptions of the Messiah were also contingent on Israel's response to his plan for their future. They follow Deuteronomic pattern of blessings and curses contingent on human behavior. Do not forget that Jesus himself used a contingent statement when describing his own death on the cross: ""If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me."[John 12:32] The meaning of the term "if" should not be equated with "when."
Evidently, even at that point, there was still a chance for Israel to accept Jesus as their rightful Messiah. Had they accepted Him as their Savior, history would have been different, because by the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem, God had already suffered more than enough since Lucifer's rebellion in heaven. What is unbiblical about this view of the reason for Jesus' death? So, why did Jesus die? Because we rejected him as our Savior and killed him, instigated by the one who has been a murderer from the beginning.
After the fact explanations for Jesus' death are not entirely reliable. They do not reveal the whole truth. Joseph of old stated that his sale as a slave was providential to save them from famine. Does this mean that God had no way to save them from famine unless his treacherous brothers were willing to sell Joseph as a slave? Do you think that they congratulated themselves for their crime agains his innocent brother?
Those theologians who insist on their preference for the legal view of the cross forget that the biblical statement affirming that there is no redemption without the shedding of blood reflects human justice. The Jews had a natural bent for the use of symbols, and in the Bible blood is a symbol of life.
When Jesus told the crowd of followers that they needed to drink his blood and eat his flesh, they were offended. Jesus explained to them that "The flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life [John 6:53,63]. Their salvation was contingent on their acceptance of his teachings, not on their willingness to take the life of the Son of God or on drinking his blood and eating his flesh.
Finally, let me remind you that the Bible says some surprising things about the sacrifice of animals: "I gave them also statutes that were not good" [Ezeq. 20:25]; "For I spake not ... nor commanded ... concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices: but this I commanded ... obey my voice.;" and many similar passages suggesting that the sacrificial system was a concession to their depraved appetite for the consumption of flesh. God tried to give them a vegetarian diet, but they preferred the fleshly pots of Egypt.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 08 June 2008 at 12:15
Jonathan: Thanks again for your comments. They are very helpful! I found your latest post after I posted mine.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 08 June 2008 at 12:23
*********
"It is high time that we place the blame for Jesus' death on the shoulders of God's enemy instead of the Creator."
I think we are wading into waters where no absolute statements such as this can fully float.
Hebrews 13:20 speaks of the blood of the eternal covenant as the means through which God brought Jesus back from the dead. The shedding of Jesus' blood has been described in covenetal terms throughout the book, comparing and contrasting Old and New, and illustrating how the shedding of blood was central to the covenants; "...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.". This culminates with the ultimate reference to "the blood of the eternal covenant." Since God alone is eternal, this refers to the overarching, binding agreement within the Godhead, that Christ would give his life and triumph over sin and death for us. God made this covenant with himself, so to speak, from "eternity past" and looking forward towards eternal results, as JB has stated repeatedly.
The conception and execution of it in this eternal sense, falls squarely on his shoulders. This is why Jesus, in John 10:17-18, could say in the face of his coming death at the hands of Roman soldiers and Jewish betrayers,
"The reason the Father loves me, is that I lay down my life-only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and authority to take it up again. This command I recieved from my Father."
In this sense, no one, not Satan, nor rebellious human beings, took Jesus' life from him. The fact is, no one could, unless he willingly gave it! To fully understand how the interplay of divine will, purpose and foreknowledge, and evil human activity come together here, has eluded us for 2,000 years. Theologians have pondered this interplay through the ages, and have never fully plumbed its depths. Nor does it fit neatly into our own ideas of justice, and human accountability.
On a scaled down level, the Joseph story in the OT provides one model of understanding. When confronted by his remorseful, fearful brothers, Joseph said, " What you intended for evil, God intended for good, to accomplish what now is being done, the saving of many lives." (Gen. 50:20) This did not lessen his brothers' accountability, nor their need for repentance, as seen in the story, but it speaks of God's over-arching purpose behind the human dynamics and choices made.
This same interaction between human and divine can be seen in the story of Jesus. To simply cut God's own role and responsibility out of Jesus' death, is to ignore so much of what the Bible explicitly states, in the attempt to neatly categorize the gospel into our own understanding of God and justice. To me, the gospel, God, and the merging of divine purpose with human responsibility are far too complex, to simply reduce them to such one sided statements.
Thanks...
Frank
Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 08 June 2008 at 12:49
*********
Posted by: frank7 08 June 2008 at 12:49
"...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin."
The shedding of blood was the requirement for forgiveness in the Old Covenant that was based on the "Talionis Lex" which required "an eye for an eye." Jesus replaced this imperfect legal system with a new one which required that we love our enemies instead of demanding a pound of flesh. He replaced vengeance with love.
When Jesus told the crowd that followed him that they must drink his blood and eat his flesh, they took this statement in a literal manner, which forced the Lord to explain to them the deeper meaning of drinking his blood and eating his flesh this way: "The flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life [John 6:53,63].
God's saving power is the same that created this world: it is hidden in his Word. Only God's Word can regenerate a sinful human heart and infuse it with new life in harmony with God's will. Once this is done, there is no need to impose the death penalty on the sinner, because he is now a new creature--a creature no longer in rebellion to his holy will.
This is the same power that spoke forgiveness to the paralitic and granted new life to Lazarus. This is the true meaning of the power symbolized by Jesus blood. This power was available at creation; it was available before the cross; and it is available after Jesus' resurrection. The legal theory of Atonement ignores this wonderful reality.
The shedding of human blood also symbolizes pain and suffering. Those who are enamoured with the old legal system that demands a pound of flesh, should remember that God was subjected to pain and suffering since the moment Lucifer rebelled against his holy will. This suffering and pain has lasted for thousands of years. By the time Jesus war born as a babe in Bethlehem, God had suffered more than enough.
Only Satan could demand and impose additional pain and suffering on the Son of God. He did so, and God allowed this to happen in order that Satan's true character might be revealed both to humans and to the entire universe. If suffering was the payment required for the forgiveness of sins, then I would suggest that the cross was not a payment, but rather an overpayment.
When the theory of Atonement is understood this way, God can no longer be accused of being an accomplice in the planning and executing the death of the most innocent being in the universe, because then it becomes crystal clear that Jesus death is the entire responsibility of the one who has been a murderer from the beginning.
Of course, Satan is delighted when Christians ignore this truth and thus stain God's pure and just character with the allegation that God planned the death of his Only Son. This serves his evil purposes of maligning God's holy character. We could say the same about the dogma of an eternal hell which has led many to reject a vengeful God who demands his pound of flesh over and over again throughout eternity.
The defenders of the legal theory of Atonement would do well to remember that, interpreted in a literal manner, the dogma of an eternally burning hell is biblical. We reject this dogma because it maligns the character of God and it jars with what the Bible teaches about God from Genesis through Revelation. We could say the same about the legal theory of Atonement. It is biblical if the Bible is interpreted in a literal manner, but it does not agree with what the Bible tells us about the character of God.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 08 June 2008 at 5:36
*********
Those that believe in an eternal burning hell at some time have to deal with the fact that the 1st Covenant with the Jews was not everlasting nor the circumcision that was a sign of that covenant, even though it was proclaimed to be everlasting and for all generations. Gen 17:7; Gen 17:13. In the case of Eternal Hell, until consumed is probably the correct interpretation, and the 1st Covenant was conditional and became null and void due to the Jews unbelief.
However, Salvation under the 2nd Covenant does involve death of the Saviour in our stead, and dead of the sinner that doesn't accept that gift. Hard to get around those facts.
Posted by: RDS (not verified) | 08 June 2008 at 6:00
*********
Well said RDS
Posted by: pat travis | 08 June 2008 at 7:15
*********
I also say: "Well said RDS," except for his conclusion!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 08 June 2008 at 9:01
*********
Just as some children are forced to divorce their parents for abuse, alcoholism, or even abandonment, seems to be the only way that such children are able to cope; even the CPS will remove children from such an environment.
How can it be sin if those who deny God have been given such a false picture that it would be impossible for them to worship such a god? Millions throughout the centuries of Christianity have been so fearful of a god who would send them to everlasting Hell (Dante's Inferno) that to do otherwise would mean they are incapable of reasoning.
The postulating that normal people could possibly deny God is based on our own perceptions; we cannot be responsible for what others have been taught. They make rational judgments, just as we do, on the available information. We also should admit that there are biblical texts that illustrate God in multiple ways that are good, and multiple ways that are destructive and filled with anger. Some folks emphasize one over the other.
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 6:59
*********
So Nic,
Are you saying that we then are saved by following Christ's teaching through the power of his Spirit and Word...and his death has nothing to do with it? It was merely the evil result, of evil people who rejected this way into the kgd? And Jesus' death has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin? The Lord did not lay on him the "iniquity of us all" in order to wipe out our guilt? Following Jesus' example of love is the way in, and not the loving response from someone who has been given a free gift of total acceptance, based on Christ's complete atonement? And God's love isn't seen by giving his Son to die and pay the price we could never pay...and credit it to us as a pure gift?
If I'm understanding you correctly, sounds like a different gospel to me. Funny, but I remember Paul saying something about this...
But maybe I'm missing your point.
Frank
Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 8:13
*********
Elaine, if your home town was surrounded by terrorists that are about to blow up you and your neighbors, and George W., who I know you are not too fond of, gave the order to destroy and capture any survivors of the terrorists, would your feelings about him, having saved your life, change?
It is similar with God, when he protects His own by destroying those that would destroy us, it should heighten our love for Him and His protection.
However, if your Pacificism is more important than eternal life, your individual reaction may vary!!!!
Posted by: RDS (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 8:34
*********
Yes, in the OT the writers said God told them to destroy all their enemies. Did it heighten their love for him? Were they then more obedient?
If one is killed by a terrorist, are you implying that their eternal life is at stake? How many innocent people have lost their lives in the search for terrorists? If one believes in eternal life, there should be no worry of terrorists, should there? Even those in the early history of Christianity courted mayrtrydom as they believed it was the assurance of eternal life.
We are all going to die, by one method or another. Few of us have any control over how our life will end; relinquishing that control leads to a peaceful attitude. Christians, who believe in eternal life, of all people should not be threatened by losing their lives today. Yet, I see few who aren't desperately clinging to life and none that are looking forward to death. Paradoxical?
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 9:20
*********
Posted by: Elaine Nelson 09 June 2008 at 6:59
"Millions throughout the centuries of Christianity have been so fearful of a god who would send them to everlasting Hell ... "
No doubt! This false view of God's character who would demand a pound of flesh day after day throughout eternity for a short life of sin has driven millions to desperation, atheism, and madness. We can say the same about a theory of atonement which pictures God demanding the death of his Only Son, the most innocent being in the universe, before being willing to forgive sinners their shoretcomings.
Imagine the father of the prodigal son meeting his dad, repentant and willing to be hired as a menial servant, and his father responding: "Before I can forgive your misbehavior, we need to execute your little brother." This is in essence a picture of the legal view of the cross. What is different between this dogma and the one about an eternally burning hell? Not much. Both of them paint a distorted picture of God. God is just. No doubt, but fair at the same time!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 11:52
*********
Nic, God gets angry, also. Because that violates your logic or sensitivities doesn't make it any less so. This is not about you but about salvation from destruction and eternal life that only God can grant on His terms, like it or not.
Posted by: RDS (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 12:07
*********
Posted by: frank7 09 June 2008 at 8:13
"Are you saying that we then are saved by following Christ's teaching through the power of his Spirit and Word...and his death has nothing to do with it? ... nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin?"
Jesus said to his disciples the evening before his crucifixion: "You are now clean." He did not say, "You will be clean after I have shed my blood on the cross." Way before his death, Jesus said to the paralitic: "Your sins are forgiven." He did not make forgiveness contingent on his death. What did he say about his death? He stated the following: "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself."
We often sing with great zest about the power of Jesus blood. Does Jesus' power reside in his literal blood, or rather in his Word? Can we trust Jesus to answer this question? To the crowds that followed him for the fish and the daily bread, he said that they needed to drink his blood and eat his flesh. His hearers interpreted his statement in a literal manner, and we do the same when we insist that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of Jesus blood.
This erroneous concept is partially true, because, were it not for his death, many would have not been drawn to repentance and forgiveness, but we should not erroneously conclude that there is no forgiveness for those who repent for other reasons. The paralitic was forgiven before Jesus death, and he probably knew nothing about the coming death of his Savior.
Did Jesus suggest that his death would have no effect on sinners' salvation? To the contrary. His death would motivate many to accept him as their Savior. Did he ever suggest that forgiveness was contingent on his death? Perhaps such texts can be found. I know that Paul has said this, but I will rather believe what Jesus said about the forgiveness of sins rather than taking Paul's statements verbatim. Paul told us that women should not talk in church, but God used a woman as his intrument to build the SDA church, and she probably preached more sermons than the average minister.
Did the Lord let his hearers believe their erroneous manner of interpreting his statements in a literal way? No! He told them: "The flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I have spoken to you, they are spirit and they are life." [John 6:53,63] God's saving power does not reside in the literal blood of Jesus, nor on his literal death, but rather in the creative and redemptive power of his Words, the Words which created us in the first place, and who are imbued with the power to recreate us in his image.
I have to go! I will answer you other question when I return. God bless!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 12:45
*********
Tom,
I know you grasp what is taking place here. Those who do not hold that substitutionary atonement is necessary or takes place don't feel that scripture is our final authority or an accurate representation of God's will today...it is a man made book in the final analysis pure and simple.
Thus they would not accept or allow a "literalistic" systematic theology approach to convict them as presented in Berkhof's systematic theology. After all Berkhof in their reasoning believes in eternal hell and TULIP thus obviously he is also wrong on the merits of Christ's sacrifice and blood substitution.
Another aspect is for "liberal theological Adventism" to feign the "Great Controversy" theme while ignoring it's fundamental principles set forth by EGW that I offerred in this strand.
What we have ladies and gentlemen is a mess and confusion in the Adventist church over the understanding of the true Gospel since our beginnings. Gal.1:4-8.
Jonathan, I don't see that next Quarters lessons are about the Atonement...you sure?
Pat
Posted by: pat travis | 09 June 2008 at 12:57
*********
Pat,
And we also are to trust Jesus' words on salvation through the gospel writers over Paul's take on it. I guess Paul is less inspired...even less so than EGW, apparently.
What a mess!!
Thanks...
Frank
Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 3:52
*********
Nic,
Simply put, you believe in sanctification as salvation, but totally apart from justification as described in Romans, Galatians, etc.
BTW, Paul describes Christ our Passover as sacrificed. As the Lamb of God, our faith in his blood/death, is how God unleashes his power to set us free. It's God's doing. Christ was God's lamb. The Passover was the type.
Thanks...
Frank
Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 3:57
*********
Pat, no confusion. Look at Paul's commission:
Acts 26: 15"Then I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?'
" 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 16'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me AND WHAT I WILL SHOW YOU. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
Paul was going to be shown things by Jesus. I would think we should be very careful to discard or ignore Paul's version of salvation, don't you?
Posted by: RDS (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 4:45
*********
Well my dear brothers, I can see that many characterize anyone who disagrees with them as someone who:
a. does not take as final authority the bible,b.disbelieves that Christ really died or shed His blood, c. or is making up a "nicer" God and without divine wrath (anger)d. doesn't understand that the Bible and EGW uses many of the models, not just one. ( more accurately, they contain themes that correlate with many of the present atonement models, but has yet to be encapsulated comprehensively and coherently into one theory of atonement. )
I feel I have been mischaracterized in this thread. I believe in all those things with all my heart and have written so- actually being the first to mention point (d) myself. (obviously, many don't read accurately), and was hoping that with my fellow Adventists we could discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the various atonement theories, and learn together. There are weakness to the Great Controversy or Larger View theory too, and I was going to go in to some of that, but perhaps this isn't the right setting, as I am not among careful friends.
God does save us and has through the death of Christ.
Please don't stoop to impugn another's spiritual motives to assert your points. It ruins the atmosphere of love. For some, atonement is a closed book, all done and explained. For me, I believe we will spend eternity looking deep into it's many facets and keep finding new ways to understand it that incorporate the best of what we already knew- why not start that journey of eternity now?
Thanks and bye.
Posted by: arlyn (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 5:10
*********
Pat
Let me take up for my liberal friends of faith. You shouldn't be so discouraged about their theology. All of you seem to agree that God is standing with his hand outstretched to you. The discussion here is about what makes him do it. To me that seems to be a lesser concern, and one that should not separate good friends. I seem to remember from my reading of the Bible that Christianity is not a pass/fail graduate seminar in theology.
Posted by: Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 5:30
*********
Posted by: frank7 09 June 2008 at 8:13
"The Lord did not lay on him the "iniquity of us all" in order to wipe out our guilt? ... And God's love isn't seen by giving his Son to die and pay the price we could never pay...and credit it to us as a pure gift?"
Frank: It seems to me that you are attempting to interpret what the Bible says about the Atonement in a strictly literal manner. Could it be that you are making Nicodemus mistake? When Jesus told him he needed to be born again, he responded that said requirement was impossible to comply with. Do you think that "iniquity" is an object that can be transferred from one person to another? Would you grant that we are dealing with metaphors here?
This is the way I read this: God the Father and God the Son agreed that Jesus would assume the responsibility of revealing to heavenly and human beings the true character of God, which had been maligned by Lucifer. This implied tremendous risks in the event Jesus might fail to perform this task correctly.
Such a revelation did not begin when Jesus was born as a babe in Bethlehem. It started in heaven following Lucifer's rebellion. It involved pain and suffering, which is the natural result of rejected love. By the time Jesus took human form, both Jesus and God the Father had suffered enough as a result of sin and rebellion. This suffering was not an artificial legal requirement, but rather a natural consequence of God's infinite love towards those he had created.
The "price" for out salvation is also a metaphor. You seem to equate said price in terms of blood spilt. Remember that many innocent human beings were crucified by the Romans, but the "price" they paid had no efficacy to save from sin. I see this "price" as suffering resulting from rejected and misinterpreted love manifested by human sin and rebellion.
Seen this way, the suffering connected with Jesus' death was not a payment, but rather an overpayment, because by the time he came from heaven, he had suffered more than enough. This is why Ellen White describes the cross as a window designed to help us see the suffering God was subjected to since rebellion broke out in heaven.
I would venture to suggest that, had Israel of old comprehended how offensive to God sin is; had they understood the tremendous pain God had been subjected to as a result of sin and rebellion, there would have been no need for God to allow the death of Jesus. There was no longer any underpayment in terms of suffering. Unfortunately, God's plan for Israel's future failed, and God saw that allowing Satan to exercise his murderous desire of killing the Son of God, would eventually be beneficial to many who otherwise would never be drawn to the love of Jesus.
Does this mean that God requred the death of his Son? I don't think so! Satan demanded this, and God let him climax his evil desires and thus reveal to the entire universe that he has been a murderer from the beginning. The cross became a crystal clear revelation of the contrast between God's and Satan's characters.
This is why Jesus could say to Nicodemus: "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself." There is an enormous difference between drawing a rebellious child by the chords of love and pacifying an angry deity with the sacrifice of an innocent victim.
Both Josephus and the Bible make reference to kings who under tremendous military threats, did offer their first born son as a sacrifice to pacify the anger of an enemy military general. This is a pagan way of pacifying the anger of an enemy. Using this metaphor to illustrate God's saving action does do a tremendous injustice to God's character.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 6:04
*********
Arlyn,
Personally, I have no problem with your desire to discuss various understandings of the atonement. I agree with you, that one model cannot sufficiently explain the vastness of what Christ has done.
The problem that I do have, as do others, is with those who want to throw away the idea of substitutionary atonement, altogether. When statements are made by those making this argument that they would rather listen to the words of Jesus through the gospel writers than trust what Paul is saying about the atonement, then what is one supposed to think? When Paul is quoted with no regard for context to support such thinking (his statement concerning the silence of women), what is one supposed to make of it? When clear lines of thought in letters such as Romans and Galatians that depict substitution are blithely ignored, what can be said? When Pat keeps posting EGW statements that are in agreement with substitutionary thought, and no one bothers to address it, what does that say?
Such arguments and their lack of balance do not hold water for me.
Thanks...
Frank
Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 6:23
*********
Thanks Frank for noticing the silence..."When Pat keeps posting EGW statements that are in agreement with substitutionary thought, and no one bothers to address it, what does that say?"
It says they think she was wrong!
If they don't keep harping on the "Great Controversy theme"...no problem but if they do they must acknowlege their inconsistent thought with her's to be intellectually honest.
While I disagee with EGW on not entering the Most Holy until 1844, I don't harp on the "Investigative Judgment Theme" beginning in 1844 as being good and then ignore what she said about it...Fair enough?
Arlyn, If the shoe fits wear it. I don't hate you are dislike you and I will respect your right to your view as others who I call my friends. That does not mean I have to respect your view as an adequate representation of scripture or that I would be willing to pay you to teach my children the gospel...fair enough?
Aage, To much historically has gone into the development of scriptural substitutionary atonement and justification by faith alone to not contend for the faith. I respect but will not personally accept the validity of arguments that diminish scripture's authority or reframe scripture in such a way as to diminish Christ's and scripture's supernatural claims.
Regards from one sinner to another,
pat
Posted by: pat travis | 09 June 2008 at 6:45
*********
Nic,
I have seen your argument over and over and understand where you are coming from. I can see beauty in some of what you say. But, I cannot agree with your total dismissal of God requiring the death of his Son. Too much Scripture speaks too clearly and readily to me on this issue.
We are debating the whole basis of justifcation by faith, the article on which Luther said "the church stands or falls." Of which EGW said is "the three angels message in verity."
At this point, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You feel that I'm a literal thinker. I feel that you are imposing an Adventist/Great Controversy/EGW paradigm (while ignoring statements that Pat has posted showing EGW's agreement with substitutionary atonement) on clear readings of the text. Your reasons for diminishing Paul's witness and writings concerning this also baffle me.
Your emphasis on Jesus as the revelation of God's love is wonderful. I just see his sacrifice as the ultimate self-giving revelation of this love, offered in ther form of the free gift of himself and his salvation to us. I recieve it and him by faith.
To me in the end, our different takes in many respects do not have to be totally either/or, but could move to both/and. However, where we disagree may prevent this shift from ever fully happening. Nevertheless, let God lead.
Blessings...
Frank
Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 6:48
*********
Posted by: RDS 09 June 2008 at 12:07
"Nic, God gets angry, also. Because that violates your logic or sensitivities doesn't make it any less so."
RDS: Yes! The evidence is that Jesus, the Son of God, the clearest revelation of God the Father, did get angry and chased the merchants from God's holy Temple. Did I ever say that God is immune to the feeling of anger? We need to differentiate, though, between uncontrolled and unreasonable anger which leads to unjust treatment of others, and the one that is fully controlled and motivated by love which moves an individual to choose the best course of action for the benefit of all involved.
Thirteen years ago a careless driver killed my daughter. I forgave this woman for her action. Would it have been proper for me to say to her: "I have the legal right to take youjr life, but I am willing to forgive you for the pain and suffering that you have caused to me and my family; but before I can forgive you, you need to help me first kill my daughter's younger sister. Only such an action will fulfill the rquirements of justice. Would this be evidence that I am really just and fair in my treatment of the one responsible for my pain?
This is the kind of justice espoused by those who blindly defend the legal theory of Atonement. I just can't swallow this kind of pagan justice. It maligns and distorts God's holy and just character. Whenever anger leads people to act in an unreasonable, unfair, and cruel manner,the glory of God is diminished, dimmed and destroyed.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 9:01
*********
Posted by: frank7 09 June 2008 at 3:57
"Nic, Simply put, you believe in sanctification as salvation, but totally apart from justification as described in Romans, Galatians, etc."
Frank: Let me speak for myself. For me, in a nutshell, justification represents the immediate result of God's forgiveness, and sanctification the long term result of the same.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 9:26
*********
Posted by: frank7 09 June 2008 at 6:48
"Nic, ... I cannot agree with your total dismissal of God requiring the death of his Son. Too much Scripture speaks too clearly and readily to me on this issue. ... I feel that you are imposing an Adventist/Great Controversy/EGW paradigm (while ignoring statements that Pat has posted showing EGW's agreement with substitutionary atonement) on clear readings of the text."
Frank: Jesus was a Jew, he was raised by a Jewish mother, and he grew up in a Jewish culture. Jews had a strong love of metaphors, and Jesus used them profusely. This is why he had to explain to his disciples again and again the true meaning of what had said.
Nicodemus misinterpreted what the Lord had stated by reading it in a literal manner, the crowd that followed Jesus did the same and Jesus had to explain to them that his flesh was a symbol of his Words, Jesus' disciples missed what the Master was trying to tell them when he warned them about the leven of the pharisees, and those who hated him accused him of plotting to destroy the Jewish Temple. All these people were determined to stick to a "clear readings of the text."
I agree with you that there is much in the Bible using the substitutionary metaphor to explain Jesus death. Let me suggest to you that a "clear readings of the text" destroys the beauty of biblical metaphors and leads us to mar the Holy character of God. The insistence on the legal theory of the Atonement and an ever burning hell has the tendency to lead some people to reject both the Bible and sometimes even God. I am trying to avoid this honest, but misguided mistake.
And let me remind you that Atonement means reconciliation. We were the ones reconciled to God, and not God to us. God never stops loving, even when sometimes he performs his "strange" work and destroys obstinate sinners who have committed the unpardonable sin by severing their connection with his Holy Spirit. God bless!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 09 June 2008 at 10:03
*********
Okay, to address the "silence" re: Pat's quotes.
1. John 3:36 was quoted by Pat in his statement "To the one rejecting the Son "the wrath of God remains on Him." this poses no threat to the Great controversy theory, the wrath of God is spelled out by the Bible in Romans 1:18-1:28. The bible describes wrath in past tense in tangible real life examples-as the mechanism clearly delineated as giving up, abandoning them. I use this clear and present world description of God's wrath and His role in the application of the His own wrath and apply it to Revelation's wrath in that less clear-visionary book of the final death. And the understanding of God's wrath is not just "one" verse, its many, with concrete examples in Romans.
2. "The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because he himself was obedient. {ST, December 9, 1897 par. 6}"
Son of God endured the wrath (abandonement by God)of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world (not the future as well? so this phrase should NOT be limited to its literal limits-I would credit even more to this phrase than EGW does- all the sin of the Universe, past, present and future- based on the Biblical view) was laid upon the Sin-Bearer (with its full effects- death), the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because he himself was obedient. This correctly aligns with Romans 3:25's idea of propitiation, shedding of blood, past and present sins, 1 John 2:2 propitiation for the whole world, I John 4:10 that God sent him to be the propitiation for our sins. But EGW's requirement that perfect obedience is what made him worthy to be the propitiation doesn't go far enough because there are other beings in the universe that are perfectly obedient and available, so I expand on this one literal requirement statement to believe that more than perfect obedience, Christ also had other characteristics that made him more than anyone else- appropriate for this sacrifice. Propitiation- the sacrifice that "atones, turns one favorable, reconciles, appeases" the anger (or wrath of God-see above- in this setting). (Oxford English Dictionary). No problem with that, though I dislike the pagan implications of one of those words-"appeasement" and I suspect you do too.
3. DA 22.2 complete agreement, it does not go against the Great Controversy it does not solely support the Penal Substitutionary Theory, so I really don't need to unpack this one for you.
4. DA 834.2 complete agreement, again, it can support all the atonement theories, is not an argument limited to any of them. So I won't unpack this one either.
Two good arguments given and answered. Two moot arguments don't need addressing in this context of comparing views.
I just thought you could see that these aren't really that exclusive to the penal-substitutionary theory. The silence has been addressed.
Posted by: arlyn (not verified) | 10 June 2008 at 3:50
*********
Pat,
"if the shoe fits, wear it" typical callous remark from utterers who dismiss responsibility for their negative affect on the conversational mileiu, even as they defend their point. Or shall we see this as the stance expected from a penal-substitutionary theorist? Perhaps the shoe does reflect the thrower?
I gotta stop.
Posted by: arlyn (not verified) | 10 June 2008 at 4:09
*********
Nic,
Atonement, in the Hebrew sense (kippur)does not simply mean to reconcile. You are taking the linguistic trick, at-one-ment, and using that for its whole range of meaning. Kippur's first appearence in the OT means covering. Its later, more liturgical use means cleansing. Reconciliation to God implies both of these meanings as well, as seen in the temple service and Yom Kippur. I wrote more about this in an earlier post.
Again, I feel you are taking one aspect of truth to build your case, without acknowledging the multi-faceted nature of what Christ has accomplished. This is in line with ignoring statements of debt being paid, such Jesus own ransom statement, and Paul's statement about our certificate of debt (i.e. sin-debt) being nailed to the cross in Colossians 2.
We can agree to disagree.
Frank
Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 10 June 2008 at 4:49
*********
Nic
Has it been thirteen years? Seems like yesterday to me. How much more so it must seem to you! How well you carry your cross!
Dave
Posted by: davidrlarson | 10 June 2008 at 5:00
*********
This tempest in a teapot and the exact definition of how we are saved, is only another well-thought out reason for many to reject the whole death of Jesus concept.
Surely, no one here today would limit salvation to those who had a proper and correct definition and could succinctly state it.
Frankly, agnosticism looks better every day: if I'm saved, it will surely not be because of my ability to pass a test or diagram or write a thesis on what Christ's death means. If I'm lost, it too, will not be because of misunderstanding and misinterpreting this dilemma that is too apparent here.
You've done some of us a favor in illustrating that Christ's death can never be explained to a child, let alone and adult. Did anyone ever consider that it is just may not be a necessary requirement for any Christian?
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 10 June 2008 at 6:55
*********
Arlyn,
Might have overlooked it but did you address this one?
"Worthy, worthy is the Lamb
that was slain, and hath redeemed us to God by His own most precious blood!" {GC 651.2}and The compact had been fully carried out. Now He declares: Father, it is finished. I have done Thy will, O My God. I have completed the work of redemption. If Thy justice is satisfied, "I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am." John 19:30; 17:24. {DA 834.2}
The substitution of Christ for our sins by his atoning death/blood that allows God to be just and the justifier of those who trust in Him has been repeatedly denied by you if I am not mistaken.
pat
Posted by: pat travis | 10 June 2008 at 7:31
*********
Elaine,
Christ did say unless you become as a little child you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Children seem to be able to believe that Christ died for their sins on the cross while obviously not understanding all the implications.
It is adults that feel the cross is a scandal and foolishness, and thereby to them Christ death ends up being a stumblingblock.
pat
Posted by: pat travis | 10 June 2008 at 8:00
*********
Posted by: pat travis | 09 June 2008 at 6:45
"Thanks Frank for noticing the silence..."When Pat keeps posting EGW statements that are in agreement with substitutionary thought, and no one bothers to address it, what does that say?" It says they think she was wrong! If they don't keep harping on the "Great Controversy theme"...no problem but if they do they must acknowlege their inconsistent thought with her's to be intellectually honest."
Pat: The fact that Ellen White did use the substitutionary theory of Atonement is a given. The same is true about the Bible. You can use Mrs. White's statements to support any explanation for jesus death on the cross. She was a prolific writer and she probably did not miss any of these theories. The question is: Should we interpret those statements in a literal manner, or is it more proper to treat them as metaphors.
I have been suggesting that, if a literal reading does violence to the character of God; if it portrays the Creator as vengeaful, irrational, cruel, and unforgiving; then please opt for a metaphorical reading of the text. We do the same with the literal readings of the biblical texts making a reference to an ever burning hell. We do reject such literal reading of the text because it does violence to the true character of God. The Lord is just, and does punish the wicked, but he is not irrational, nor cruel, or vegeaful.
Am I one of those who you think are "inconsistent" and who are not "intellectually honest"? Let the reader decide! I have a hard time understanding how we can accept certain biblical statements as metaphorical while we reject others which are even more so.
When someone asks you: "Are you born again Christian," you do not take this literally. Nicodemus did read Jesus' statement this way, but we don't. Why can't we see the metaphor in the reference to the substitutionary death of Jesus, when a literal interpretation maligns the character of God? I suggest that both the legal view of the cross and the dogma of an eternally burning hell distort and stain God's just and loving character. For this reason we opt to treat those texts metaphorically!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 10 June 2008 at 1:01
*********
There is only a metaphor Nic if the language is consistent with the rest of the Bible. How one can read about years and years of substitutionary animal sacrifice, and believe that Christ's death is a metaphor is beyond me. The truth of it is right in front of your nose!!!
Posted by: RDS (not verified) | 10 June 2008 at 1:36
*********
It seems to me Nic that everything from the Bible's words to EGW's words in your view are not to be taken literally in most cases but simply become metaphors for my own personal interpretation.
This is a serious deconstruction of human communication and language. We are to proceed from a literal understanding in communication unless the genre of the literary type would suggest for us to do otherwise.
As RDS says, what was all that OT substitutionary sacrifice about... It was about preparing us for the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world. His own blood is the blood of the covenant shed once for all for forgiveness of sins.
Now that may seem to impugn God's character to you but to me He was declaring that He could be just and the justifier of those that trust in Christ...I thought that was the main premise of the GC theme of how can God be just and forgive sinners without voiding His law.
"Worthy, worthy is the Lamb
that was slain, and hath redeemed us to God by His own most precious blood!" {GC 651.2}and The compact had been fully carried out. Now He declares: Father, it is finished. I have done Thy will, O My God. I have completed the work of redemption. If Thy justice is satisfied, "I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am." John 19:30; 17:24. {DA 834.2}
pat
Posted by: pat travis | 10 June 2008 at 2:00
*********
Posted by: frank7 10 June 2008 at 4:49
"Nic,Atonement, in the Hebrew sense (kippur)does not simply mean to reconcile. You are taking the linguistic trick, at-one-ment, and using that for its whole range of meaning. Kippur's first appearence in the OT means covering. Its later, more liturgical use means cleansing. ... This is in line with ignoring statements of debt being paid, such Jesus own ransom statement, and Paul's statement about our certificate of debt (i.e. sin-debt) being nailed to the cross in Colossians 2."
Frank: Linguistic trick? I did not even use the "at-one-ment" linguistic device. I am familiar with it, but I purposely avoided it for the simple reason that it does not work in other languages. It works in English only. I resorted intead to the Webster's definition of the term: "Reconciliation ... the reconciliation of God and man." My question to you. Who was in need of reconciliation, God or man? Who had alienated himself from the other party? Who took the initiative to entice the other party to becomes friends again?
Let's consider now the different connotations of the terms that you cite: 1. Covering. Can we take this term in a literal manner? Do you believe that God literally covers our moral imperfections in order that his eye will no longer see them? If not, then , would you grant that it is a metaphor? 2. Cleansing. Does God literally uses a sponge, soap and water-or literal blood, if you prefer-- to cleanse our sins? Would you admit that this is a symbol for the concept of forgiveness? 3. Ransom. Was there a literal exchange of gold, silver, or any other object of value between Satan end God. If not, would you concede that we have here again another metaphor? 4. Certificate of Debt. Does God hold a copy of a receipt acknowledging that payment had been made, or are we dealing again with another metaphor?
My dear friend: I invite you to recognize that this Atonement busines is metaphor all the way down. Let me unravel this metaphor for you so that my little grandchild will understand: God created man perfect and obedient. He listened to Satan and rebelled against God. God said: I can make you perfect and obedient again if you will let me. I created you, and I can make you whole again. Please, let's be friends again. This is the Gospel, the way I understand it, in a nutshell.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 10 June 2008 at 5:54
*********
Posted by: davidrlarson 10 June 2008 at 5:00
"Nic, Has it been thirteen years? Seems like yesterday to me. How much more so it must seem to you! How well you carry your cross!"
David: Yes, it happened thirteen years ago. Following the tragic loss, when the pain was the greatest, what sustained me was the knowledge that God had also experienced the tragic death of his Only Son. "Ten thousand angels" were ready to free the Savior from his enemies, yet God foresaw that in the event Jesus "was lifted up," he would draw all men to him, and many would respond to the drawing of his love; people who otherwise would not do it.
If God saw it fit to allow this tragedy, and he allowed millions to suffer for his cause, who was I to expect a special treatment? God could have avoided my loss by delaying the crossing of that intersection in the City of Redlands by a fraction of a second, and my daughter would be alive today. He so it fit not to intervene, and I must accept his wisdom, since he gave me ample evidence of his love and care.
God bless!
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 10 June 2008 at 6:31
*********
Nic,
Thanks for sharing of yourself with such grace. More than all this debate, I want to say how much more your words of personal belief have meant--and I'm sure I'm not the only one. As EGW made clear, a cold, joyless religion never brought anyone to Christ, and I fear in all our theorizing we do just that, and reduce his wonderful work to some transactional theory. Thank you for confirming the truth won at such great cost--even a ransom!--that if we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father, and all the lies of the Devil over the nature and character of God as seen for what they truly are.
May we not fall into the same trap as those so self-assured "godly" people that believed very much as we do in terms of following Biblical injunctions to pay tithe and avoid unclean foods and keep the Sabbath, yet crucified the Lord of glory.
May God bless you for your loving defense of our loving Lord,
Jonathan
Posted by: Jonathan Gallagher (not verified) | 10 June 2008 at 6:49
*********
At the risk of being misunderstood our misfortunes and cross',terrible as they are, don't constitute "eternal" truth. Indeed there are traumatic experiences in our life. We all have had some and unfortunately some more profound ones.
This issue is about Him who sufferred and bore the sins of the world and that is what is the source of our present and ultimate healing.
For Paul in his trials said this,
"And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I Cor.2:1,2.
Regards and this is in the last comment in this strand presently for me as it has perhaps turned from being able to accomplish it's original intent "to our cross."
I am sorry for your loss Nic. I lost an old friend and relative this week "to sleep" whose husband and baby were lost in an accident some 30 years ago.
May her joy be full at the resurrection because of the Christ she loved and who she believed died and gave his life for her in love so that she could see her loved ones again in eternity.
Regards,
pat
Posted by: pat travis | 10 June 2008 at 9:48
*********
Posted by: frank7 09 June 2008 at 6:23
"The problem that I do have, as do others, is with those who want to throw away the idea of substitutionary atonement, altogether. When statements are made by those making this argument that they would rather listen to the words of Jesus through the gospel writers than trust what Paul is saying about the atonement, then what is one supposed to think? When Paul is quoted with no regard for context to support such thinking (his statement concerning the silence of women), what is one supposed to make of it? When clear lines of thought in letters such as Romans and Galatians that depict substitution are blithely ignored, what can be said? ... Such arguments and their lack of balance do not hold water for me."
Frank: I do lament the fact that you are misreading the comments I have made so far. I have not attempted to throw away the many biblical and Ellen White's references to the substitutionary explanation for Jesus death on the cross. All I have tried to do is to emphasize the fact that reading what seems to be metaphor in a literal manner is inappropiate.
Jesus followers, Nicodemus, and those who condemned Jesus to death did interpret what he had said, thus patently ignoring the meataphor he had used. The Lord said they needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and the Jews refused to acknowledge that he was using a symbol for his Words. He told Nicodemus that he must be born again, and he said: "That is impossible!" He said "destroy this temple," and Jesus enemies took him literally and accused him of plotting to destroy the Jewish Temple.
Jesus said to his disciples: "This is my body." Catholics say: "See? That bread was transformed into Jesus' body!" We say: "Nonsense. The bread they ate was still bread." This means that we do know the difference between what is metaphor and what is literal language. We do know when to read biblical statements metaphorically.
Jesus said: "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother ..." and we say, it is a metaphor. What he meant is: "Whoever does not love less his father and mother ..." Jesus said: "Let the dead bury their dead," and we say: It's a metaphor. It means, do not wait until your parents are dead to follow me."
How is it that we can deal with these metaphors, but when it comes to the substitutionary explanation for Jesus death, which portgrays God as a cruel deity demanding the death of his own Son as a condition for granting forgiveness to repentant sinners, we say: This statement must be interpreted verbatim. No metaphor here!
Frank, let me repeat here what I stated before: It is metaphor "all the way down." Forgiveness, God's love, and salvation are real, but the way these heavenly realities are depicted in Scripture are metaphors. Look how many symbols Jesus used to describe the kingdon of heaven: as leaven, as a large catch of fish, as a grain harvest, as the task of separating sheep from goats, and so on. The same can be said about the many ways the Bible describes the suffering of our Savior.
So, do not think that I am rejecting what the Bible or Ellen White have stated. I only reject the literal reading of the text when such literal reading maligns the character of God. You claim that my arguments do "not hold water," and you are right, they hold the sacred water that has been transmuted into wine by the power of the one who provided this delicious beverage at the wedding at Cana.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 10 June 2008 at 9:57
*********
Pat,
Cheers! I believe you do misunderstand me persistently. I do NOT deny the substitutionary bloody actual death of Christ on the cross that saves me. And God is both just and the justifier of those who trust Him. I believe in every bible verse you can find.
I just don't ascribe to your exact interpretations of those sacred words.
And here, I must say goodbye for real. Thanks Nic and Jonathan and RDS, JD and Pat for how much you love the Lord and enjoy trying to understand His work on the cross.
sincerely,
arlyn
Posted by: arlyn (not verified) | 10 June 2008 at 11:34
*********
Metaphors, literalism, parables......There are times to realize it is a parable and not to take it literally, i.e. Lazarus and the Rich Man an arm's length away from each other, one in heaven one in hell. Believe that literally? However, when we impose our interpretation of Salvation to be a metaphor, we get on dangerous ground. I personally take the subject very serious. I quit participating in a forum when an self proclaimed Atheist was given free run of the place. Why waste our time talking anti-God talk. There is nothing at the end but death and dust.
Nic, you say it is about God saying, "Let's be friends and I can make you perfect like Adam was before he sinned." WOW, what an interpretation! That's more than a metaphor, that is a left field interpretation, IMO. If God created the earth, and man in His image and said, this is what you have to do to be saved, I count that seriously more than a metaphor, I consider that serious instruction.
Why is it that there is a new group in the last decade or so that what to define for everyone else what a loving God is. That is presumptious at best and leading a stray at worst. Be very, very careful in this territory. Believing in a God that has a multi-faceted personality that includes Love, Justice, Mercy, Anger (at disobedience), Wrath (to protect those who love Him and He loves), Power to destroy (to make all things new for our eternity). To lightly interpret how to be saved after all the blood shed in the OT pointing to a Savior who would die, I take literally. Are there parables and metaphors used in the Bible, yes, but not about how to be saved. What was said to the jailer by Paul, "Well Jesus die, but that was a metaphor!!!!" Dangerous, Dangerous, ground to be on Nic!!!
Posted by: RDS (not verified) | 10 June 2008 at 11:41
*********
Nic,
I understand metaphors for what they are...I'm not stupid. However, I feel that you are taking such metaphors, and pouring different meaning into them, or discarding them altogether.
Ransom or certificate of debt means a price had to be paid, a price that we couldn't...Paul and Jesus are merely using those terms to point to the spiritual reality. But, I understand you saying that no price needed to be paid for us. Your interpretation of the metaphor is different than mine.
For the third time, we can agree to disagree. And I would appreciate not being talked down to.
Thanks...
Frank
Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 11 June 2008 at 4:55
*********
Instead of saying that the Bible's descriptions of God, and salvation (the atonement), are "metaphorical", not literal, would "analogical" perhaps not be more apt?
Posted by: Joselito Coo | 11 June 2008 at 5:47
*********
Posted by: Elaine Nelson 10 June 2008 at 6:55
"This tempest in a teapot and the exact definition of how we are saved, is only another well-thought out reason for many to reject the whole death of Jesus concept. Surely, no one here today would limit salvation to those who had a proper and correct definition and could succinctly state it.
Frankly, agnosticism looks better every day: if I'm saved, it will surely not be because of my ability to pass a test or diagram or write a thesis on what Christ's death means. If I'm lost, it too, will not be because of misunderstanding and misinterpreting this dilemma that is too apparent here.
You've done some of us a favor in illustrating that Christ's death can never be explained to a child, let alone and adult. Did anyone ever consider that it is just may not be a necessary requirement for any Christian?
Elaine: I understand your frustration. If acquiring a correct understanding of how Jesus saves were a requirement for salvation, no one would qualify. The Bible says that even angels are eager to understand this mystery. Nevertheless, if, according to Ellen White, this will be the central topic of study in heaven throughout eternity, what is wrong with trying to unravel what we can by using what God has revealed to us so far in the Bible and the writing of Mrs. White?
This exercise is not mandatory for salvation. "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." This a little child can understand, and it represents what is needed for salvation. The rest is optional icing on the cake. I do not need to understand how my car is put together. Of course, some individuals enjoy learning this, but it is not a requirement for getting the benefits of this wonderful miracle of transportation.
Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 11 June 2008 at 6:51
*********
Nic: agreed. It is man who has devised such complexity. Look no further than Adventists who begin their evangelistic meetings with Daniel's prophecies. If one judges by the first encounter, we have not simplified, but rather complicated it.
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 11 June 2008 at 9:37
*********
Nic wrote:
"This exercise is not mandatory for salvation. "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." This a little child can understand, and it represents what is needed for salvation."
Frank7 wrote:
"Ransom or certificate of debt means a price had to be paid, a price that we couldn't...Paul and Jesus are merely using those terms to point to the spiritual reality. But, I understand you saying that no price needed to be paid for us. Your interpretation of the metaphor is different than mine."
And there we see the flaw of the penal theory, Jesus is love and He can freely forgive and He freely gives of Himself. God is full of wrath and He demands someone must be punished, someone must pay God the penalty for sin because God can't freely forgive, because God is mad at people. But God is love..well at least Jesus is love...God not so much.
Posted by: rc | 11 June 2008 at 9:50
*********
No flaw to me if you see that God is multi-faceted. Infinite mercy and infinite righteousness and holiness in one and the same being.
Another thought, do we possibly under-estimate the offensiveness and destructiveness of sin? The finale of Revelation speaks of sinners being raised, and still attempting to destroy the city. They are possessed by absolute insanity! God wipes them out in the end to secure his creation and his redeemed, and to put them out of their misery, so to speak. This would be an act of love.
If one were to attempt to destroy your family, would you stand by idly and watch? Is sin in its raw state much more aggressive and destructive then we now understand it to be? Would it not warrant God taking action? And could it not explain the action that Jesus/God agreed upon together to take against it, rather than us, at Calvary?
For the last time, we can agree to disagree.
Thanks...
Frank
Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 11 June 2008 at 10:15
*********
The problem is that the book of Revelation is written in a style that is highly symbolic, to attribute it as literal or to attribute that because it says something that it must happen that way is to misunderstand apocalyptic literature.
Of course this would apply to your multifaceted view of God as well, He could be everything that you make Him out to be. Irrational, one who punishes the innocent, wrathful and cruel who would cause eternal conscious torment and the defense would be the same as you put forward. "We simply don't take in the multifaceted nature of God." It is a dodge which tries to explain the irrational view as if it is rational.
Posted by: rc | 11 June 2008 at 11:30
*********
Arlyn wrote: "How does the death of Christ satisfy God? Is a God that satisfies Himself moral? Is a God that accepts the death of an innocent for the guilty, moral? Is violence at the cross the only way to end sin?"
It would seem to me that the significance of Jesus death and how it dealt with the sin problem would depend very much on what we think that problem is.
If we believe that the real "problem" with sin is that it is "illegal" and incurs a "legal penalty" then we will understand the solution in terms of a "legal payment".
If we believe that the real problem with is is that it breaks relationships, specifically our relationship with God, then we will understand the redemptive event more in terms of an at-one-ment, a bring back together of separated parties.
If we believe that the real problem with sin is that it destroys its victims then we may understand God's remedy more in terms of healing.
God has given all of these explanations to us so that no matter what our hangup is, he has a way to reach us.
As to this "satisfying" God in some way, the implications for the kind of God that portrays... well, it doesn't seem very much like Jesus is portrayed, the same Jesus that said "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" and "this is life eternal, that you may know me and the One who sent me."
Mark
-- What senses do we lack that we cannot see, cannot hear another world all around us.
Posted by: MrBadger | 11 June 2008 at 11:31
*********
rc,
I never said that I believe that God causes "eternal conscious torment," as you put it. I don't believe that is true at all. But, unlike you, I can separate that issue from the others we have been discussing.
As far as the rationality of what we are discussing, go ahead and try to rationally prove faith and hope. Rationally prove miracles and the resurrection, the "mystery of Godliness," and the "mystery of iniquity," the trinity, etc. At some point, our rational thought hits a wall with all of it. I don't view that as a dodge, just the reality of what we are dealing with. It doesn't all make rational sense, it exceeds it. That is why Paul calls it, "the foolishness of the message."
And BTW, it would help in the future if you would not put words in my mouth.
Thanks...
Frank
Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 11 June 2008 at 12:06
*********
Frank7 wrote:
"I never said that I believe that God causes "eternal conscious torment," as you put it. I don't believe that is true at all. But, unlike you, I can separate that issue from the others we have been discussing."
I never said that you believed in eternal conscious torment, but those who do follow your same erratic
