Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[pnattmbtc]

This is a typical revivalist picture of what Christ did not the cross. Christ literal became sin, thus father would unleash the emotional wrath on Christ by separating from Him... thus fulfilling Father's wrath and justice. Thus Christ literally carries all of the sins inside himself, causing the Father to literal hate Christ and turn His back on Him.

The idea behind a substitute as a judicial punishment IS NOT the same idea of the "firemen paying the price". Fireman does not pay in terms of judicial punishment. Based on her view, Christ's payment was in fact a judicial in nature and thus was a penal substitute. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the above quote.

I think the "Desire of Ages" gives a complete treatment to what EGW believed in regards to Christ, and from what she wrote in the chapters "Gethsemane," "Calvary," and "It is Finished," we get a good picture of what she believed.

When considering what an author believes, one can't simply grab one quote. One must consider all that was written on the subject.

In the case of Lucifer, she said that God offered him pardon. This is without Christ having to die. This idea is completely contrary to the penal substitution idea which would have said that Christ had to die because Lucifer had violated the law and the law demands death for those who break it. But there was no death. Just an offer of forgiveness.

I agree that she used penal substitution language, but what did she mean when she used this language? I pointed out that Fifield also used this language; it seems that everybody at this time did. But by reading the explanations provided, we get an idea as to what they really believed.

[pnattmbtc]

p:Jesus said to pray that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. If everything that happens is God's will (which must be the case if the only things that happens are what God intends to happen, which appears to be what you're suggesting), then God's will is *already* being done here, and Jesus' prayer request doesn't make sense.

f:This is a faulty logic. Jesus prayer was not merely wishing for God's will to come about.

[pnattmbtc]

N:This affirmation makes no logical sense. If every act and thought of mine is already known, then I do no have truly free will and true choice.

f:How is it that you are missing this point? I don't understand what's so logically hard about it???? I'm tired of breaking it down, but I will again.

[pnattmbtc]

I don't conclude that He planned it. I conclude that He foresaw it and planned around it, while using the circumstances. I also conclude that He did not decide to intervene and prevent the act seeing that in the end it will save the entire nation. Thus it was a part of His plan.

It's rather confusing if you assert simultaneously that:

1.God did not plan it.

2.It was a part of God's plan.

[pnattmbtc]

Why is it then there such ambiguity when it comes to interpretation of Biblical premise?

[Nic Samojluk]

As long as you make false claims publicly, I feel they should be addressed.

[Nic Samojluk]

Speaking of the time when God offered Lucifer forgiveness, Ellen White says, "[Lucifer] had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God." PP 39.

[fccool]

Quote:

It's rather confusing if you assert simultaneously that:

1.God did not plan it.

2.It was a part of God's plan.

What bases that you put such limitations on God? I don't support Calvinism, so please don't ascribe Calvinism to my view. Calvinism asserts that indeed we don't have free will. And thus God predestines (not merely foreknows) people either to heaven or to hell, as per Romans 7.

I'll explain the above.

1) God did not plan it - He did not plan it in a sense that we did plan it in our reality. We are making all of the choices, and we are free will agents.

2) It's a part of His plan because He decided to create the world knowing that both Satan and humanity will fail. Whether you interpret Revelation 13:8 based on the Names in the book, or Lamb Slain (I think former) still would mean that God would know and decided to go through it.

You fail to address my compatibility illustrations as per free will, because you have this idea of "Free will" that is defined by someone and unless the events match the definition, then it's invalidated. I'll point out some problems with your view:

1) Choice is in effect an event that is caused by something. It does not stand on its own... so your view logically shoots itself in the foot when it demands "uncaused" choice. No-one simply just makes a choice arbitrarily. Our choices constrained to pre-existing knowledge of pre-existing events. Our choices are not stand-alone. These are caused by something. We don't just sit and think... I'll murder someone today. These kind of people would be psychotic, because they do things without any underlying constraints.

2) Your idea of free-will in fact ascribes to human something that God is incapable of doing! God can't choose to lie, God can't choose to do something that is not within His natural parameters. Does it mean He does not have free will?

3) You idea of God's uncertain knowledge creates many theological oxymorons. Promise for resurrection of the dead requires a perfect knowledge. It requires knowledge of every particle on this planet of every microsecond. It requires perfect knowledge of human memories, and likewise human desires.

4) Your view of free will imposes limits on God and in fact creates a circular reasoning of the sort:

1) Free will must be true because we should be held responsible for our actions

2) God can't foresee any events because that would mean that we don't have free will

3) Therefore God can't see things with certainty because free will libretarianism must be true

[pnattmbtc]

Nic, didn't you see post 377827? John317, the Moderator, wrote:

Quote:

Speaking as the moderator:

If anyone wishes to discuss this further, regarding Ellen White's sources, let them take it to a different thread. Thank you.

[pnattmbtc]

p:It's rather confusing if you assert simultaneously that:

1.God did not plan it.

2.It was a part of God's plan.

f:What bases that you put such limitations on God?

[fccool]

Quote:

If God set into motion a course of events which could only have one outcome, the existence of sin, then He is morally responsible for the existence of sin. He could have avoided the existence of sin by simply taking a different course of action than He did. He wasn't constrained to create Lucifer. He certainly (under your assumptions) foresaw that if He created Lucifer that sin would occur, and that if He created some other being in Lucifer's place that it wouldn't. He weighed these possibilities, and deliberately chose the option that would certainly lead to sin as opposed to the option that would certainly not lead to sin. That makes Him morally responsible for sin.

Sure, I'll reply to this idea... because likewise It does not take sovereignty into account. I don't really want to paste the chunks of scripture here, but I'll have to:

Quote:

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."[c]

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."[k]

Here... Paul specifically anticipates your question. How can men still be held morally responsible for God's choices? Simple... God is the creator. It has nothing to do with our idea of justice and "free will".

Peter acted freely. You still fail to respond as to how some history is set in stone, and the other is "unclear". How can it be both based on your view? Did Peter not have a free will and other did? How can you explain your inconsistency in these cases?

That's why I point to your argument being rather remeniscent of circular logic. You underlying argument is that Armenian interpretation of the Free Will MUST BE TRUE. And this is the core argument revolves around. Sure, you address the implication of God being morally responsible for creation... let me ask you this question.

If indeed Hitler's mother knew that her son would do all of these things... for certain... would she be morally responsible for giving Him birth? Or should she better commuted abortion? Would she likewise be morally responsible for doing that? (if we look at it on the level of God's morality). Can God penalize people for the crimes yet committed by not allowing them to be born, if indeed He did see it coming?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Here... Paul specifically anticipates your question.

No, he's not dealing with my question at all. He's dealing with the question of justification by faith:

Quote:

30What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Paul is driving towards this conclusion.

Quote:

How can men still be held morally responsible for God's choices? Simple... God is the creator.

Your argument is that man is responsible for God's choices? And this is because God is the creator? And this is simple?

Quote:

It has nothing to do with our idea of justice and "free will".

What has nothing to do with our idea of justice and "free will"?

Quote:

Peter acted freely. You still fail to respond as to how some history is set in stone, and the other is "unclear".

I did respond. I wrote a detailed explanation. Look for the post which discusses things which are "already settled," and that God Himself is involved in the future, and knows perfectly what He Himself will do.

Quote:

How can it be both based on your view? Did Peter not have a free will and other did? How can you explain your inconsistency in these cases?

Please respond to my post which dealt with this. I didn't specifically address Peter, but I laid out a framework for dealing with this and similar questions (e.g. Cyrus).

Quote:

That's why I point to your argument being rather remeniscent of circular logic. You underlying argument is that Armenian interpretation of the Free Will MUST BE TRUE.

I've simply pointed out that your ideas of free will are Calvinistic while mine are Arminian.

Quote:

And this is the core argument revolves around. Sure, you address the implication of God being morally responsible for creation... let me ask you this question.

If indeed Hitler's mother knew that her son would do all of these things... for certain... would she be morally responsible for giving Him birth? Or should she better commuted abortion? Would she likewise be morally responsible for doing that? (if we look at it on the level of God's morality). Can God penalize people for the crimes yet committed by not allowing them to be born, if indeed He did see it coming?

If she had the ability to know, before she got pregnant, that Hitler would be born if she conceived when she did, but not if she waited for some other time, say a minute later, then she would have moral responsibility for Hilter's birth. Your question involves if a morally questionable act (an abortion) should be performed to prevent evil. There would have been nothing morally questionable about God's not creating Lucifer, so your question is unnecessarily complicated. So I exchanged it to a more appropriate question, which I am answering affirmatively.

Regarding God's moral responsibility for creating evil, I'm understanding that you agree that God did set into motion a course of events which could only result in evil existing. You believe that it was inevitable, once God created Lucifer. God specifically made a choice that was certain to result in evil. However, you believe God is not morally responsible for evil because He is the creator. So, evidently, God, as creator, can do anything, without being morally responsible for the results of His actions.

[Robert]

I believe that she was inspired by God to write and that her writing are, like she claimed, a “lesser light” designed to lead us to the “greater light” which is the Bible.

Bingo!

[Nic Samojluk]

Even after Lucifer had gone too far to be forgiven and reinstated, the other angels still had opportunity to return to loyalty to God because they had been blinded by Satan's deceptions. PP 41

On the other hand, because of the test that God gave Adam, and because of the nature of mankind, mankind had fully cast off his allegiance to God when he sinned. Not only that, but man's very nature was immediately changed so that forgiveness alone would have done Adam no good. Repentance alone would not have been sufficient to save him. Adam would still have been a rebel and therefore unsafe to save at that point.

[pnattmbtc]

Jesus himself said that His death was "necessary." Luke 24: 46. Why necessary? Because of God's own holy, righteous, loving character.

Jesus NEVER said His death was because of God's own holy, righteous, loving character.

[fccool]

Quote:

Regarding God's moral responsibility for creating evil, I'm understanding that you agree that God did set into motion a course of events which could only result in evil existing. You believe that it was inevitable, once God created Lucifer. God specifically made a choice that was certain to result in evil. However, you believe God is not morally responsible for evil because He is the creator. So, evidently, God, as creator, can do anything, without being morally responsible for the results of His actions.

I don't want to misrepresent God by answering this question. The truth is that the information provided is quite inconclusive, and whatever I choose to believe is in fact the best explanation that I can come up with.

My life does not revolve around the ideas of doctrine. My life revolves around the idea that God is in fact love. All doctrine must measure up to this standard. We tend to inadvertently make things a lot more complicated than these should be.

I certainly don't want anyone to fear God because of my view of Him. If that's the case, then my view is worthless. It does nothing for God and I'd rather keep it to myself.

One of the reasons I've started this thread is precisely that... religion today abuses God's love and twists it into fear of Hell, or invoke guilt for unthankfulness. That's why our theology tends to get stuck on the idea of God that's impatient, unkind, manipulative, quick to anger, someone who does not persevere and would leave you the moment you fall and make a mistake, who is constantly demanding our worship, who is not proud and self-seeking.

If I bought my wife a beautiful dress, and then people compliment her because of the dress... do I demand that all of the glory be given to me because I bought it and gave it to her? We paint God as a megalomaniac. It's sickening.

It's a gross representation of God. And I'm sick and tired of misrepresenting Him in front of the people. I think it hurts Him more than anything that His own children don't even know what's He like. We kind of take all of the attributes of Satan and ascribe it to God. That's why our marriage with God tends to be something perfunctory, who would want a husband/wife like the God we paint in church today?

[pnattmbtc]

I certainly don't want anyone to fear God because of my view of Him. If that's the case, then my view is worthless. It does nothing for God and I'd rather keep it to myself.

[Nic Samojluk]

On the other hand, because of the test that God gave Adam, and because of the nature of mankind, mankind had fully cast off his allegiance to God when he sinned. Not only that, but man's very nature was immediately changed so that forgiveness alone would have done Adam no good. Repentance alone would not have been sufficient to save him. Adam would still have been a rebel and therefore unsafe to save at that point.

[Nic Samojluk]

In order to believe that Christ's death was not necessary or not part of the plan of salvation, one must ignore much of the Bible and the very clear language of Ellen White in PP 63-69. Those pages leave no doubt.

[Nic Samojluk]

BUT, due to the nature of foreknowledge and historic intervention... Christ knew that this will not be the case, and that's why he clarified many times to the disciples that this will not happen. That people will indeed reject Him and kill Him. And that He will continue to be the king of a different kingdom... consisting of the people who accept His sacrifice. Therefore, it creates this teleological confusion as to why Christ came in the first place. Did He come to live, or did He come to die?

In my view, the knowledge of the future was ambivalent. The Bible did predict the death of the Messiah, and also predicted that he would reign over a glorious earthly kingdom with Jerusalem as the metropolis of the entire world. To Mary the promise was ambivalent as well. Her son would inherit the throne of his father David and also a sword would pierce her soul.

You probably did notice that Jesus began to emphasize his death towards the end of his ministry. Why? Because the chosen nation was still free to accept him as the Messiah. When they crossed the point of no return, then it became necessary for Jesus to submit to torture and death in order to provide the maximum expression of God’s love for humanity.

Let’s not forget that even Isaiah 53 contains a contingency in verse 10, according to many translators. Likewise, Jesus himself did express to Nicodemus the idea that his death was contingent on human response. “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself.

[wayfinder]

Genesis 2:17...for in the day you eat from it you shall surely die(be put to death/executed). Adam and his wife understood that to disobey God meant thay would be put to death on the day of their disobedience. This is why they hid when the Lord God was walking through the garden on the day of their disobedience, they were not put to death.

Genesis 3

22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil ; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "-

23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.

The logical understanding of this statement is that Adam and Eve were mortal beings who had access to eternal life as long as they were able to eat from the tree of life. God makes no mention of this baring access as the penality for disobedience, but because the man had become like God, knowing good and evil.

The simple answer to the question of why Jesus was put to death, is that there remained a debt that must be paid before salvation would be possible. God requires obedience to His commands, tthose who disobey God will be put to death. Adam and his wife disobeyed God, but were not put to death as was required; therefore they incurred a debt which remained unpaid until the Son of God paid it with His execution.

Look through the books of the Law, see how many times God required execution for disobeying His commands.

Deuteronomy 13

1 "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,

2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known ) and let us serve them,'

3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams ; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

4 "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him.

5 "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.

[pnattmbtc]

The simple answer to the question of why Jesus was put to death, is that there remained a debt that must be paid before salvation would be possible.

This isn't simple! Why? For one thing, Jesus Christ never mentioned. He said a lot about His death, but never said anything about there being a debt that had to be paid before salvation would be possible. One would think He would have found some time somewhere to discuss this.

For another reason, this whole concept hadn't been invented yet.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: fccool

Therefore, it creates this teleological confusion as to why Christ came in the first place. Did He come to live, or did He come to die?

I think the following is one of the clearest explanations regarding why Christ came:

Quote:

Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God....

The very attributes that belonged to the character of Satan, the evil one represented as belonging to the character of God. Jesus came to teach men of the Father, to correctly represent him before the fallen children of earth. Angels could not fully portray the character of God, but Christ, who was a living impersonation of God, could not fail to accomplish the work. The only way in which he could set and keep men right was to make himself visible and familiar to their eyes. That men might have salvation he came directly to man, and became a partaker of his nature.(ST 1/20/90)

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Look through the books of the Law, see how many times God required execution for disobeying His commands.

In looking at the OT, one should take into account the ignorance of the people involved, and their hardness of heart. For example:

Quote:

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.(Matt. 19:6)

If we wish to understand God's will, Jesus Christ is where we should look. What did Jesus Christ teach? What did He live?

He had the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that God desires that those who break the law be executed when the woman caught in adultery was brought to Him. How did He react?

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

No, of course not . People did not have to reject Him in the first place... just like people did not have to sin. But, the string of events made it necessary as foreseen by God... , hence the prophecy given to serpent.

Human nature being what it is, it's obvious what would happen should God appear in the flesh. Nic's point, as I have understood it, is that it was necessary that the Jews reject Christ. I was pointing out that Christ still could have been killed in this case.

I'm not sure what Nic's take is on this.

Nic’s view is that there was no need for the Jewish leaders to take the life of the one who was sent to them to save them. They were originally free to make a choice, either to accept Jesus or reject him. They could have chosen to accept him as their promised Messiah and rightful King. Of course, once their decision was final, there was no way for them to retrace their steps. At that point, they had committed the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit and they were no longer free to make a choice because they were slaves of Satan and were forced to do his bidding.