What is salvation?

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Come on now...let's make decisions based on the Bible! Gal 4:4 says that Christ's assumed humanity was "born under the law, to redeem those under the law [under the curse']..."

Now go to Gal 3:13 Christ [as the son of man] hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written , Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree

Now use Ellen: Jesus was born under the curse because "He took upon His sinless nature [as Deity], our fallen nature [as us]".

No, Robert.

[Woody]

Quote:

You mean "yes, Robert - you are right!"???

Robert ... you have to understand that those words "Yes, Rob - you are right" .... are hard for some here to say. But they know it is true.

I will be the first brave one to come out and admit it ...

Rob ... You are right.

[Robert]

Read!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Sometimes I think some people on the theology threads are really saying the same thing, only in different ways. And they can't see it.

[Robert]

No Pam, I disagree....It sometimes sounds the same, but it's different....I see why you would get them confused....

[SivartM]

No, it's pretty much the same.

Blah, blah, you're wrong, blah blah, heresy, blah...

[teresaq]

Sometimes I think some people on the theology threads are really saying the same thing, only in different ways. And they can't see it.

you, too?!? or at least similar. and sometimes one perspective of it.

[teresaq]

Robert,

Please note, my only conversation on this thread is with you. I am sincerely trying to understand this concept. That being said, you wrote:

Originally Posted By: Robert

We stand condemned because of inward sin (iniquity) and outward sins....

Are we conceived and born under this condemnation? Why would we be born condemned if we are not sharing Adams guilt? Is it not this guilt that Christ speaks of when He talks of freeing the captive? And, is it not the condemnation resulting from this guilt that Christ, in the flesh, suffered the penalty for?

Again, thank you in advance for your answers to my questions. And please, don't quote people who are in error to support your perspective. It only confuses weak minded people like myself! Thank you.

it would be helpful if you would point out the error for "ignorant" folk like me. thanks in advance for understanding. :)

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

When Jesus was a baby, don't you think He cried when He needed attention? [/quote']

So Jesus had fits of rage.....You've seen babies when they are upset, they throw fits....

having had babies, there is crying and there is "fits of rage". i dont think we should interchange one for the other.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Why do you think we are born without God's Spirit?

Adam....

You seem to be implying that any human being is born without the Holy Spirit. I'm asking you why you think this is the case. Simply saying "Adam" doesn't answer this question.

[pnattmbtc]

I'm convinced that God did not condemn His Son. Christ was condemned by man, but not by God. He bore the curse of sin on our behalf, but he was without sin. Christ was sacrificed for OUR sins, but He was the unblemished lamb. He could not be condemned. He was unblemished. The doctrine of original sin does not hold here.

[Robert]

You seem to be implying that any human being is born without the Holy Spirit. I'm asking you why you think this is the case. Simply saying "Adam" doesn't answer this question.

"for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage" [2 Peter 2:19]

By deceiving our first parents (Adam and Eve) and causing them to fall, Satan took possession of this world and made it his own; this is based on the principle recorded in 2 Peter 2:19.

John 14:30. Since the fall of man, Satan has become the “prince of this world.”

2 Corinthians 4:3-4. Paul refers to Satan as the “god of this world.”

Using man as his tool, Satan has developed a kingdom (the Bible refers to it as “the kingdom of this world”) that is based entirely on the principle of self and which is in complete opposition and contradiction to the “kingdom of heaven.” Everything, therefore, that goes to make up this worldly system (kosmos) — nationalism, tribalism, politics, education, commerce, recreation, sports, social clubs, technology, etc. — is founded upon the principle of love of self, even though at times this principle may not be obvious. According to 1 John 2:16, “all that is in the world” (i.e., without exception) is based or founded upon lust (i.e., love of self). [js]

[pnattmbtc]

karl, I think it was, addressed this point. He spoke of Gen. 3:15, and God's influence on the human race, through the Holy Spirit, making it possible for man to choose either Satan or God. "As soon as there was sin, there was a Savior."

We see the work of the spirit upon those of any age. For example, consider Samuel. As a very young child, he responded to the Spirit. Even more striking is the example of John the Baptist, who responded to the Spirit while still in his mother's womb!

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

I'm convinced that God did not condemn His Son. Christ was condemned by man, but not by God. He bore the curse of sin on our behalf, but he was without sin. Christ was sacrificed for OUR sins, but He was the unblemished lamb. He could not be condemned. He was unblemished. The doctrine of original sin does not hold here.

As to whether God condemned His Son, I think it really depends upon what one means. Specifically, it depends upon whether one views God as being active or passive here. In Sequeira's sermon, he talked about God's condemning Christ, but he appeared to me to be qualifying his comment by saying "as far as Christ's feelings were concerned," which I think is a correct qualification. God *allowed* Christ to feel this way. God "spared not His Son," but "delivered Him up for us all." So if one viewed these acts as God's condemning His Son, I could see that, but given the way ordinary language is understood, I agree completely with your point. In fact, God was never closer to His Son that at Calvary, as God and the holy angels were with Christ. Psalm 18 eloquently describes God's leaving heaven to be with His Son. The SOP tells us, in one of her most profound statements IMO, that "God Himself was crucified with Christ." Given this to be the case, God could hardly have been condemning His Son (as, to do so, would mean condemning Himself, since He was crucified with Christ.)

[pnattmbtc]

karl, in terms of the atonement and the Plan of Salvation, it sounds like we're on the same page. Regarding the salvific terms, as you put it, they were at times used in a corporate sense. The context has to be taken into consideration to know which aspect applies.

For example, from Prescott:

Quote:

Now is it not perfectly clear from the 18th verse that as condemnation came upon all men, so justification of life came upon all men? Perfectly clear. The thought seems to me to be this,--that in Jesus Christ all men were justified. (1895 GCB)

From Ellen White, we see the following ideas:

a.The disobedience and fall of Adam brought the wrath of God upon the whole human race (1SP 49)

b.The Son of God brought deliverance to the race. (SW 2/2/04)

c.Christ, on before of the race, vanquished Satan, elevating the human race in moral value.(BE 12/1/93)

d.Christ restored the whole human race to favor with God.(1SM 343)

e.Christ broke the chain that held the human race in slavery.(RH 3/15/87)

f.Christ broke the power of the tempter over the human race.(YI 6/30/92)

These aren't using salvific terms, but are expressing the corporate concepts, which is the important thing anyway.

[karl]

karl, in terms of the atonement and the Plan of Salvation, it sounds like we're on the same page. Regarding the salvific terms, as you put it, they were at times used in a corporate sense. The context has to be taken into consideration to know which aspect applies.

For example, from Prescott:

Quote:

Now is it not perfectly clear from the 18th verse that as condemnation came upon all men, so justification of life came upon all men? Perfectly clear. The thought seems to me to be this,--that in Jesus Christ all men were justified. (1895 GCB)

From Ellen White, we see the following ideas:

a.The disobedience and fall of Adam brought the wrath of God upon the whole human race (1SP 49)

b.The Son of God brought deliverance to the race. (SW 2/2/04)

c.Christ, on before of the race, vanquished Satan, elevating the human race in moral value.(BE 12/1/93)

d.Christ restored the whole human race to favor with God.(1SM 343)

e.Christ broke the chain that held the human race in slavery.(RH 3/15/87)

f.Christ broke the power of the tempter over the human race.(YI 6/30/92)

These aren't using salvific terms, but are expressing the corporate concepts, which is the important thing anyway.

Let's take them one at a time.

If we believe that all men were actually justified at the cross, rather than having justification made available to them (the wording supports either meaning,) we have to believe that all men were pardoned at the cross, because "justification" and "pardon" are synonymous. Then we have to throw out EGW who says that, because of some men's impenitence, Christ's prayer "Father forgive them" could not be answered. Or we have to come up with a bizarre pardon of the impenitent which does not include forgiveness. EGW equates the receiving of forgiveness with the receiving of pardon, and she talks of "hoping to be pardoned of our offenses against God."

EGW refers to the "offer of justification," which, for me, does not describe a forensic universal justification.

"I have no smooth message to bear to those who have been so long as false guideposts, pointing the wrong way. If you reject Christ's delegated messengers, you reject Christ. Neglect this great salvation, kept before you for years, despise this glorious offer of justification through the blood of Christ and sanctification through the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit, and there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation."

The other alternative here is to create a different justification. The "justification of life" which can than be differentiated from the "justification of salvation." This, of course, muddies the water, and dilutes the true meaning of justification, so that each time you use the word you need to insert a paragraph explaining why you're using whichever meaning you're using.

I'll handle your other points in subsequent posts.

[pnattmbtc]

karl, there's two different concepts involved. If you insist on conflating them, it will result in confusion, and you'll be forced to do what you're doing, which is throw one of them away. What Prescott wrote is sound. Perhaps you could take another look at that. Also, Jones preached a number of sermons on the concept, in 1895, starting with Sermon #14, and going from there. These are available online here: http://www.sdabol.org/sbhn/1888/1895gcs.htm.

The simple way of thinking of it is that Christ did something which benefited the entire human race. All human being benefit from this, whether they accept Christ or not.

Additionally, Christ also made salvation available for all, and, through the Holy Spirit, actually draws them toward Himself, such that one must resist Him in order to be lost.

So there is a corporate aspect and an individual aspect. The individual aspect involves volition. The corporate one doesn't, but will not save anyone of itself.

[teresaq]

karl, there's two different concepts involved. If you insist on conflating them, it will result in confusion, and you'll be forced to do what you're doing, which is throw one of them away. What Prescott wrote is sound. Perhaps you could take another look at that. Also, Jones preached a number of sermons on the concept, in 1895, starting with Sermon #14, and going from there. These are available online here: http://www.sdabol.org/sbhn/1888/1895gcs.htm.

The simple way of thinking of it is that Christ did something which benefited the entire human race. All human being benefit from this, whether they accept Christ or not.

Additionally, Christ also made salvation available for all, and, through the Holy Spirit, actually draws them toward Himself, such that one must resist Him in order to be lost.

So there is a corporate aspect and an individual aspect. The individual aspect involves volition. The corporate one doesn't, but will not save anyone of itself.

so many of us forget that spiritual things are spiritually discerned....if we dont "get it", we wait prayerfully til God gives us understanding...

[karl]

karl, in terms of the atonement and the Plan of Salvation, it sounds like we're on the same page. Regarding the salvific terms, as you put it, they were at times used in a corporate sense.

From Ellen White, we see the following ideas:

a.The disobedience and fall of Adam brought the wrath of God upon the whole human race (1SP 49)

b.The Son of God brought deliverance to the race. (SW 2/2/04)

c.Christ, on before of the race, vanquished Satan, elevating the human race in moral value.(BE 12/1/93)

d.Christ restored the whole human race to favor with God.(1SM 343)

e.Christ broke the chain that held the human race in slavery.(RH 3/15/87)

f.Christ broke the power of the tempter over the human race.(YI 6/30/92)

Above we see expressions which can be viewed as supportive of universalism.

The question is: "Was EGW describing a universal salvation or was she describing an individual salvation?" Most of those in favor of forensic salvation immediately reply, "Both!" Some go completely Univeralist and just stick with that (or Calvinism.)

We know that EGW was neither Universalist nor Calvinist, so I hope I don't have to defend her writings from any supposed support of those beliefs.

But the 1888 MSC, Sequira, and others would have us believe she was promoting both universal forensic justification/reconciliation (without man's cooperation) and personal faith-received justification/reconciliation (with man's cooperation.) Two different things ....or the same thing only different?

The most glaring problem with forensic anything is that God changes. God somehow appeases Himself to where He permits Himself to treat us differently. This is antithetical to the Gospel. The Father loveth you. He so loved that He gave. (Please note that He didn't give so that He could love. This is an extremely important distinction.)

So, when you read the expressions from SOP above, you can assume they say that somehow things were altered presto-chango at the cross. Or you can understand them the way the author does (by reading the other things she writes on the subject) and learn that this is a potential change. The stage is set. The door is opened. The evidence is provided. The belief will follow, if we behold the Lamb.

What forensic change do you think happened when Christ "broke the chain that held the human race in slavery?" I don't see anything forensic. I see that Christ demonstrated the truth about God's character. The chain is a chain of lies that Satan has fostered to keep the race in mental slavery.

When EGW talks about Christ elevating the race in moral value, what do you think that means? We have no moral worth on our own, so the only thing it can refer to is the influence of Christ on our hearts. If we think it refers to some external worth placed upon us (which, by definition, couldn't be moral worth,) we are again referring to a change in God's thinking. This is a teaching of appeasement.

[karl]

The simple way of thinking of it is that Christ did something which benefited the entire human race. All human being benefit from this, whether they accept Christ or not.

Additionally, Christ also made salvation available for all, and, through the Holy Spirit, actually draws them toward Himself, such that one must resist Him in order to be lost.

So there is a corporate aspect and an individual aspect. The individual aspect involves volition. The corporate one doesn't, but will not save anyone of itself.

I absolutely agree with what you say above.

I don't believe that the universal accomplishment of the plan of salvation should be called justification, reconciliation, or salvation because, as you say, it will not save anyone. EGW never refers to any justification other than saving justification.

I am not conflating two things when I oppose the term "universal justification." Quite the opposite, I am trying very diligently to oppose writings which conflate genuine saving justification with something that isn't.

We are agreed on what happens. We differ on what to call it.

[pnattmbtc]

Above we see expressions which can be viewed as supportive of universalism.

[karl]

So even the choice we have to reject Christ we owe to the possibility of Christ's work. As you pointed out, God (and Christ) took action in Gen. 3:15 to save the race. As soon as there was sin, there was a Savior. Had this action not been taken, the race would have been lost. Therefore taking that action saved the race.

I think we agree on what happened and what is happening. I am opposed to referring to it as a single event that happened at the cross - even in reference to the corporate benefits. The focal point of the entire plan of salvation is the cross, and so inspired writers have used "the cross" as synonymous with the entire plan. It is possible to take their statements too literally. It is because of the entire plan of salvation that some of us will be saved.

When we separate out the cross from the rest of the plan, we come up with partial truths that can then be further distorted.

[pnattmbtc]

I think we agree on what happened and what is happening. I am opposed to referring to it as a single event that happened at the cross - even in reference to the corporate benefits. The focal point of the entire plan of salvation is the cross, and so inspired writers have used "the cross" as synonymous with the entire plan. It is possible to take their statements too literally. It is because of the entire plan of salvation that some of us will be saved.

When we separate out the cross from the rest of the plan, we come up with partial truths that can then be further distorted.

[Musicman1228]

It is a lie that there was a risk that Jesus Christ could have failed in accomplishing His part of the plan of salvation; Jesus was/is God, can God fail? Don't be silly. Jesus Christ did not have a sinful nature, which would be required for Him to have failed. Jesus Christ had to have the nature of God to accomplish the death of the perfect Passover sacrifice to separate the Kingdom of Heaven from the kingdom of the world. If you believe that Jesus could have failed then you must believe that He was not God, and that would be blaspheme.

[Guest]

It is a lie that there was a risk that Jesus Christ could have failed in accomplishing His part of the plan of salvation; Jesus was/is God, can God fail?