Is 2 Corinthians 5:17's "new creation" speaking of the believer?

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

Do you deny the legal framework of the atonement? 

Yes?

[pnattmbtc]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

Do you deny the legal framework of the atonement? 

This is a good question.  I started to answer this, and "poof" what I was writing went away, so I'll try again.

I think the whole framework starts off on the wrong foot, as it is not focusing on the actualy problem.  The actualy problem has to do with God's character having been misrepresented.  This is what led to rebellion in the first place, amongst both men and angels.  The solution must be to demonstrate that the lies of the enemy are false.

Rebellion happens when lies about God are believed.  Reconciliation happens when the truth about God revealed in and through Jesus Christ is received in the heart.  This was the work of Jesus Christ, thoughout His life, and on the cross.  For example:

Quote

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.The Father was revealed in Christ as altogether a different being from that which Satan had represented him to be. (ST 1/20/90)

So when we read things like this, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God" (1 Pet. 3:18), the above is what Peter had in mind.

If we look at the problem as a legal one, and penal substitution as the answer, that does not present God in a particularly favorable light.  Also, the approach you are taking leads to untenable positions, such as that the word of Christ don't matter, only the words of Paul.

On the other hand, if we take the position outlined above, then *everything* Christ did and said was important, and involved in solving the problem.

[Robert]

27 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

We've been discussing just WHEN people were/or become "in Christ".  Robert has focused on the words "in Christ" and he believes that all humanity was "in Christ" when He died on the cross.

Romans 16:7 "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. (NIV)

They WERE - before I WAS - in Christ. 

Seems pretty obvious that the individuals mentioned by Paul, became "in Christ" AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN TIME.  Which means that everyone did NOT become "in Christ" at the moment Christ died on the cross. 

I have to congratulate you because, thus far, you have presented the best argument against what I have been presenting!

The problem with your argument (and I'll address Rom 16:7 momentarily) is found in Hebrews 9:24-26

For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 

So Christ's corporate death, which  was your death, happened once for all times.  

Now, go to Romans 6:6: "our old life was crucified with Him"

When did your old life from Adam die?  When Christ was crucified!  If not, then Christ had to suffer again and again, but clearly He died once for all. Paul emphatically states that when "One died, all died." (see 2 Cor 5:14)

When the Roman Catholic Priest does mass he is crucifying Christ afresh, again and again.  Surely you don't agree with RRC theologically?  

Now to your quote: "who also were in Christ before me"

This quote cannot contradict Paul's universal statements, such as when "One died, all died" and many others that I have cited. Then what does Paul mean?

Back to 2 Cor 5:14"For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that One died for all, then all died....16 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ...."

Paul is not denying that our corporate humanity was "in Christ" and therefore when He died, we died. The "if" above has to do with realizing this truth and accepting the truth as it is "in Christ"!  Therefore as far as accepting this truth Andronicus and Junia accepted the gospel before Paul.  That's all it means.

Again, good argument.

 

 

[Robert]

23 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Me:  Do you deny the legal framework of the atonement? 

You: I think the whole framework starts off on the wrong foot, as it is not focusing on the actual problem.

Yes, I didn't quote all you said, but then again you didn't answer me.  So I take it the answer is no?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Robert: Yes, I didn't quote all you said, but then again you didn't answer me.  So I take it the answer is no?

I did answer your question, at length.  Your question has what I view to be a false assumption, and I explained why I believe this to be the case.  One cannot answer questions with false assumptions yes or no.  For example, "Did you stop beating your wife?"  To answer this question yes or no involves accepted the unstated premise that you were beating your wife in the first place.

Your question, as posed, looks to me to be accepted Anselm's idea as an unstated premise.  I do not agree with Anselm, or Calvin.

If you have something else in mind by the language "legal framework of the atonement", besides Cavlin's explication, you'll have to explain what you mean.

[Robert]

33 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

If you have something else in mind by the language "legal framework of the atonement", besides Cavlin's explication, you'll have to explain what you mean.

I've already expounded on the truth as it is "in Christ".  This truth establishes the legal framework of the atonement.

Now, again, from this point of view, do you deny the legal framework of the atonement?  A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. 

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

I've already expounded on the truth as it is "in Christ".  This truth establishes the legal framework of the atonement.

The "legal framework" question was quoted from Sequeira.  The original quote wasn't talking about the "in Christ" idea in terms of the "legal framework" question.  This is a very old question, which has been debated for centuries.  It involves Abelgard and Anselm.  I disagree with the assumption upon which the question is predicated, which involves penal substitution.

Quote

Now, again, from this point of view, do you deny the legal framework of the atonement?  A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. 

Did you stop beating your wife?  A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

[Robert]

18 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

Did you stop beating your wife?  A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Now, again, from this point of view, do you deny the legal framework of the atonement?  A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. 

[Robert]

38 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

I disagree with the assumption upon which the question is predicated, which involves penal substitution.

 The law demands our death.  Christ, as the Son of God, assumed our life from Mary and that life (our corporate life) died in the humanity of Christ.  

I assume that you believe that Christ died, not to legally save us from under law, but to show us His love?  Well, He does love us and the cross did prove God's agape love, but that wasn't the only reason Christ died. 

Turn to Gal 3:10

“Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

That means sinners must not only die, but they must suffer the curse of the law, which is the 2nd death (goodbye to life forever without a resurrection).

Now look at Gal 3:13 

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us"

Hence "when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman (as the son of man), born under the law (in order to legally fulfill it), 5 to redeem those (i.e., sinners) who were under the law (condemnation - see Romans 2:12,13) Gal 4:4

If you deny these truths I see no point in continuing this conversation.  Why?  

Because you are blatantly attacking the very gospel that justifies us unto life.  According to Paul anyone who preaches another gospel deserves the 2nd death (see Gal 1:6-9).  You need to take this very, very seriously.

[pnattmbtc]

29 minutes ago, Robert said:

Me: Did you stop beating your wife?  A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Robert: Now, again, from this point of view, do you deny the legal framework of the atonement?  A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. 

From what point of view?  That is, what it "this point of view"?  I disagree with Anselm, if that's what your asking.

Regarding the corporate/forensic idea you are presenting, it's more the forensic part that I disagree with than the corporate part.  Once again, I don't think the whole perspective is dealing with the real issue at hand, which involves God's character having been represented, as opposed to a legal problem.

[Robert]

19 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

it's more the forensic part that I disagree with than the corporate part.  

Please explain - I am not a theologian. 

Also, please keep it simple and to the point.

Thanks

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

 

Me: I disagree with the assumption upon which the question is predicated, which involves penal substitution.

Robert: The law demands our death.

 

I'm splitting up my reply, to keep the posts from being too long.

You've never proved this.  There are different ways to see this phrase, one of which I agree with, and one I don't.  The way that I agree with it would be as a natural consequence.  For example, "Breaking a stop sign demands punishment".  What does this mean?  It could means that if you run a stop sign, a cop should give you a ticket.  Or it could mean this is a reckless thing to do, and you could cause an accident.

Breaking the law is choosing self over God, and this can only lead to death, because God alone is the source of life, and selfishness is a principle which could only lead to death.  The principle of the law is agape, to love God and others in the place of oneself.  In this sense one could say "the law demands death", although this is a rather vaugue way of putting it.  But there is no arbitrary or imposed penatly involved.  Gal. 3:10, which you usually cite, is a reference to Deut. 28, the blessings and cursings, where there is nothing arbitrary or imposed. 
 

Quote

Christ, as the Son of God, assumed our life from Mary and that life (our corporate life) died in the humanity of Christ.

Scripture never uses the phrase "our corporate life".  How do you know such a thing exists?

Quote

I assume that you believe that Christ died, not to legally save us from under law, but to show us His love?

 I would say 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.

Quote

Well, He does love us and the cross did prove God's agape love, but that wasn't the only reason Christ died. 

I agree that Christ's death accomplishes more than one thing.  A problem with the perspective you are operating from is that it focuses on Christ's death to the exclusion of His life.  Christ's death was not something isolated from His life, but was the culminating act of His life.  His entire life was a revelation of God's character, a life of self-sacrifice, a life of agape, and the crowning act was his death.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

 

Turn to Gal 3:10

“Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

That means sinners must not only die, but they must suffer the curse of the law, which is the 2nd death (goodbye to life forever without a resurrection).

 

You have presented any evidence whatsoever that this is what it means.  You are inserting your own ideas into what Paul wrote, but have made no effort to exegete what Paul's thinking was.  Paul was quoting from the Old Testament.  What he was quoting had a meaning to his readers, based on how they understood this Old Testament text.  How would Paul or his readers have understood what was being quoted?  You need to consider this.  You can't just impose your idea onto what Paul wrote.

Quote

 

Now look at Gal 3:13 

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us"

 

The same comment applies here.  I'll quote from Waggoner in a future post on these texts, to show there is another way of looking at these texts.

Quote

 

Hence "when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman (as the son of man), born under the law (in order to legally fulfill it), 5 to redeem those (i.e., sinners) who were under the law (condemnation - see Romans 2:12,13) Gal 4:4

If you deny these truths I see no point in continuing this conversation.  Why?  

Because you are blatantly attacking the very gospel that justifies us unto life.  According to Paul anyone who preaches another gospel deserves the 2nd death (see Gal 1:6-9).  You need to take this very, very seriously.

 

It looks like you're saying that the only way to see things is the way Robert sees things, but your not the oracle of truth.  I see problems with your perspective, one of which is you set aside as unimportant the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.  That's a big problem of setting up the teachings of Paul above the teachings of Christ.  In reality, they taught the same thing; they preached the same gospel.

Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. (John 5:39,40)"  Also "My words are spirit and they are life."

Paul himself said that if anyone preached a different gospel than he did, he should be accursed.  This means that Jesus should be accursed if He didn't preach the same gospel Paul did.  Your way of avoiding this conclusion is to assert that Jesus didn't preach the gospel, and you emphasize only the words of Paul, and set the words of Christ aside.  It should be obvious that this approach can't be right.  Any perspective which winds up exalting Paul above Christ, or, more accurately, the words of Paul above the words of Christ can't be right.

You need to take this very, very seriously.

[Robert]

8 minutes ago, Robert said:

Please explain - I am not a theologian. 

Also, please keep it simple and to the point.

Thanks

BTW, here's a comment of Jack's:

"The truth of justification by faith, restored by the Reformation, goes beyond a legal or forensic redemption.  In Christ’s holy history, mankind was totally saved from sin, not just its guilt and punishment.  Thus, in Christ’s earthly mission, justification, sanctification, as well as glorification, were fully accomplished for fallen humanity."

Okay, now a question:  Do you see forensic redemption as just an act that saves us from the guilt and punishment of sin?

[pnattmbtc]

This is Waggoner on Gal. 3:10

Quote

No one can read Galatians 3:10 carefully and thoughtfully without seeing that the curse is transgression of the law. Disobedience to God's law is itself the curse, for "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin." Romans 5:12. Sin has death wrapped up in it. Without sin death would be impossible, for "the sting of death is sin." 1 Corinthians 15:56. "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse." Why? Because the law is a curse? Not by any means: "The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good." Romans 7:12. Why, then, are all who rely on works of the law under a curse? Because it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them."

Mark it well: They are not cursed because they do the law, but because they do not do it. So, then, we see that relying on works of the law does not mean that one is doing the law. No! "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7, KJV. All are under the curse, and he who thinks to get out by his own works, remains there. Since the "curse" consists in not continuing in all things that are written in the law, therefore the "blessing" means perfect conformity to the law.

"Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day: and a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God." Deuteronomy 11:26-28, KJV. This is the living word of God, addressed to each one of us personally. "The law brings wrath" (Romans 4:15), but the wrath of God comes only on the children of disobedience (Ephesians 5:6). If we truly believe, we are not condemned, because faith brings us into harmony with the law, the life of God. "Whoso looks into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." James 1:25, KJV

The Bible does not disparage good works. On the contrary, it exalts them. "This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable." Titus 3:8, KJV. The charge against the unbelieving is that they are "unto every good work reprobate." Titus 1:16, KJV. Timothy was exhorted to "charge them that are rich in this world," "that they do good, that they be rich in good works." 1 Timothy 6:17, 18, KJV. And the apostle Paul prayed for us all that we might "walk The Glad Tidings Ellet J. Waggoner 39 1888 Most Precious Message, Inc. worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work." Colossians 1:10, KJV. Still further, we are assured that God has created us "in Christ Jesus for good works," "that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10

He has Himself prepared these works for us, wrought them out, and laid them up for all who trust in Him. Psalm 31:19. "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." John 6:29. Good works are commended, but we cannot do them. They can be performed only by the One who is good, and that is God. If there be ever any good in us, it is God who works in us. There is no disparagement of anything that He does. "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do His will, working in you that which is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen." Hebrews 13:20, 21, KJV

I agree with Waggoner, whom the Spirit of Propehcy said delivered to our church a message from God of righteousness by faith.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

 

In this letter there is no controversy over the law as to whether or not it should be obeyed. No one had claimed that the law was abolished or changed or had lost its force. The letter contains no hint of any such thing. The question was not if the law should be kept but how it was to be kept. Justification--being made righteous--was admitted to be a necessity. The question was: "Is it by faith or by works?" The "false brethren" were persuading the Galatians that they must be made righteous by their own efforts. Paul by the Spirit was showing that all such attempts were useless and could result only in fastening the curse more firmly on the sinner. Righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ is set forth to all men in all time as the only real righteousness. The false teachers made their boast in the law, but through breaking it caused the name of God to be blasphemed. Paul made his boast in Christ, and by the righteousness of the law to which he thus submitted, he caused the name of God to be glorified in him.

That death is the curse is evident from the last part of verse 13: "Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree." Christ was made a curse for us in that He hung on a tree, that is, was crucified. But sin is the cause of death: "By one man sin entered into the world, The Glad Tidings Ellet J. Waggoner 41 1888 Most Precious Message, Inc. and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Romans 5:12, KJV. "The sting of death is sin." 1 Corinthians 15:56. So we have the substance of verse 10 thus, that those who do not "abide by all the things written in the law" are dead. That is, disobedience is death. "When lust hath conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death." James 1:15, KJV. Sin contains death, and men out of Christ are "dead through trespasses and sins." Ephesians 2:1. It matters not that they walk about seemingly full of life. The words of Christ are, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53. "She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." 1 Timothy 5:6, KJV. It is a living death--a body of death--that is endured. Romans 7:24. Sin is the transgression of the law. The wages of sin is death. The curse, therefore, is the death that is carried about concealed even in the most attractive sin. "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them."

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law." Some who superficially read this rush off frantically exclaiming, "We don't need to keep the law, because Christ has redeemed us from the curse of it," as though the text said that Christ redeemed us from the curse of obedience. Such read the Scriptures to no profit. The curse, as we have seen is disobedience: "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." Therefore Christ has redeemed us from disobedience to the law. God sent forth His Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, . . . in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us." Romans 8:3, 4

Someone may lightly say, "Then we are all right; whatever we do is right so far as the law is concerned, since we are redeemed." It is true that all are redeemed, but not all have accepted redemption. Many say of Christ, "We will not have this Man to reign over us," and thrust the blessing of God from them. But redemption is for all. All have been purchased with the precious blood--the life-- of Christ, and all may be, if they will, free from sin and death. By that blood we are redeemed from "the futile ways inherited from your fathers." 1 Peter 1:18

Stop and think what this means. Let the full force of the announcement impress itself upon your consciousness. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" -- from our failure to continue in all its righteous requirements. We need not sin anymore! He has cut the cords of sin that bound us so that we have but to accept His salvation in order to be free from every besetting sin. It is not necessary for us any longer to spend our lives in earnest longings for a better life and in vain regrets for desires unrealized. Christ raises no false hopes, but He comes to the captives of sin and cries to them, "Liberty! Your prison doors are open. Go forth." What more can be said? Christ has gained the complete victory over this present evil world, over "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16), and our faith in Him makes His victory ours. We have but to accept it.

 

This is Waggoner on Gal 3:13, from "The Glad Tidings".  He wrote quite a bit more on this verse, but this is the first part.  Note his expression of the corporate idea in the next to last paragraph.

[Robert]

1 hour ago, pnattmbtc said:

Me: The law demands our death

You: You've never proved this.  

You know, I didn't read one thing you quoted after you made the above statement. Why?  It's pointless.  If God's law doesn't demand the death of the sinner then this conversation is once again over.  

There are tons of Paul and Ellen White statements stating God's law condemns the sinner to death.

Here are just two:

The full penalty of the law will be executed upon the transgressor if he does not receive Christ as his atoning sacrifice and personal Saviour (BEcho 8/4/1902).

God has a right to enforce the penalty of the law upon transgressors, for law without a penalty would be without force...When the curse fell upon the beloved Son of God, who became sin for us, the Father made it manifest that the unrepenting transgressor of his law would have to suffer its full penalty. The word of God declares, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (ST 7/14/1890).

[Robert]

Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law. “God is not a man, that He should lie.” God’s law is the rule of His government. He says, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But to the disobedient He says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come. He declares just as decidedly that those who do not obey His requirements shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. By lips that never lie the obedient are blessed, and the disobedient are pronounced guilty. {Ellen White RH, May 7, 1901 par. 9}

Now it looks like EGW is teaching legalism, but she's not.  She is simply stating what the law requires in return for eternal life and that is "complete obedience".  If not, the justice of God's law demands the sinner's death. 

Of course the good news is that the law has been legally fulfilled in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. 

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

 

Me: I disagree with the assumption upon which the question is predicated, which involves penal substitution.

Robert: The law demands our death.  

 

 
There are different ways to see this phrase, one of which I agree with, and one I don't.  The way that I agree with it would be as a natural consequence.  For example, "Breaking a stop sign demands punishment".  What does this mean?  It could means that if you run a stop sign, a cop should give you a ticket.  Or it could mean this is a reckless thing to do, and you could cause an accident.

Breaking the law is choosing self over God, and this can only lead to death, because God alone is the source of life, and selfishness is a principle which could only lead to death.  The principle of the law is agape, to love God and others in the place of oneself.  In this sense one could say "the law demands death", although this is a rather vaugue way of putting it.  But there is no arbitrary or imposed penatly involved.  Gal. 3:10, which you usually cite, is a reference to Deut. 28, the blessings and cursings, where there is nothing arbitrary or imposed. 
 
Christ, as the Son of God, assumed our life from Mary and that life (our corporate life) died in the humanity of Christ.

Quote

Scripture never uses the phrase "our corporate life".  How do you know such a thing exists?

I assume that you believe that Christ died, not to legally save us from under law, but to show us His love?  

I would say 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.

Quote

Well, He does love us and the cross did prove God's agape love, but that wasn't the only reason Christ died. 

I agree that Christ's death accomplishes more than one thing.  A problem with the perspective you are operating from is that it focuses on Christ's death to the exclusion of His life.  Christ's death was not something isolated from His life, but was the culminating act of His life.  His entire life was a revelation of God's character, a life of self-sacrifice, a life of agape, and the crowning act was his death.

Quote

 

Turn to Gal 3:10

“Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

That means sinners must not only die, but they must suffer the curse of the law, which is the 2nd death (goodbye to life forever without a resurrection).

 

It doesn't mean this at all.  You have presented any evidence whatsoever that this is what it means.  You are inserting your own ideas into what Paul wrote, but have made no effort to exegete what Paul's thinking was.  Paul was quoting from the Old Testament.  What he was quoting had a meaning to his readers, based on how they understood this Old Testament text.  How would Paul or his readers have understood what was being quoted?  You need to consider this.  You can't just impose your idea onto what Paul wrote.

Quote

 

Now look at Gal 3:13 

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us"

 

The same comment applies here.  I'll quote from Waggoner on these texts, to show there is another way of looking at these texts.

Hence "when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman (as the son of man), born under the law (in order to legally fulfill it), 5 to redeem those (i.e., sinners) who were under the law (condemnation - see Romans 2:12,13) Gal 4:4

Quote

 

If you deny these truths I see no point in continuing this conversation.  Why?  

Because you are blatantly attacking the very gospel that justifies us unto life.  According to Paul anyone who preaches another gospel deserves the 2nd death (see Gal 1:6-9).  You need to take this very, very seriously.

It looks like you're saying that the only way to see things is the way Robert sees things, but your not the oracle of truth.  I see problems with your perspective, one of which is you set aside as unimportant the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.  That's a big problem of setting up the teachings of Paul above the teachings of Christ.  In reality, they taught the same thing; they preached the same gospel.

 

Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. (John 5:39,40)"  Also "My words are spirit and they are life."

Paul himself said that if anyone preached a different gospel than he did, he should be accursed.  This means that Jesus should be accursed if He didn't preach the same gospel Paul did.  Your way of avoiding this conclusion is to assert that Jesus didn't preach the gospel, and you emphasize only the words of Paul, and set the words of Christ aside.  It should be obvious that this approach can't be right.  Any perspective which winds up exalting Paul above Christ, or, more accurately, the words of Paul above the words of Christ can't be right.

You need to take this very, very seriously.

[pnattmbtc]

I reposted the part you said you didn't read, leaving out the part where you said you didn't read beyond what I wrote because of what I said.

I read the stuff you write, even though I disagree with it.  Please have the common decency of exhibiting the same behavior you would expect from your readers.  Remember the golden rule.

[pnattmbtc]

The question is whether the penalty of the law is arbitrary/imposed or not.  To know what a person believes, you can't just look at a few sentences here and there and pluck them out of context, especially when the author has written millions of words.  Here are a couple of paragraphs from the chapter "It Is Finished" from "The Desire of Ages."

The purpose of this chapter is to explain what Christ accomplished by his death.  If you really want to know what her thoughts were on this subject, it would be good to read the entire chapter.

Quote

 

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.

 

From the above paragraphs, it is clear that Ellen White did not view the penalty of the law as something arbitrary or imposed by God, but as a natural consequence.  Consider:

Quote

The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.

The reason people die is not because of a legal requirement, but because they cut themselves off from life.

 

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Okay, now a question:  Do you see forensic redemption as just an act that saves us from the guilt and punishment of sin?

I disagree with the assumed premise here.  I don't see that the problem God had to solve was a forensic one, but rather see the problem was one involving His character.  I don't think Paul was concerned with the same issues Luther was.

[Robert]

1 minute ago, pnattmbtc said:

I disagree with the assumed premise here.  I don't see that the problem God had to solve was a forensic one, but rather see the problem was one involving His character.  I don't think Paul was concerned with the same issues Luther was.

We are back to salvation by character development. Again, this is subtle legalism.  

[pnattmbtc]

I think the following is a clear explanation of the process of salvation:

Quote

How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8. (DA 175-176)

Man needs to be born again, and the above explains how this happens.

[Robert]

6 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

The reason people die is not because of a legal requirement, but because they cut themselves off from life.

Then you must die!!!  You received from Adam a life that is not only polluted with self, but loves sin.  You are also imperfect and therefore you "fall short" of God's agape.  Hence He can't take you to heaven, or you would make heaven, hell.  Not to be picking on you, this is true of all of us as children of Adam.  Therefore God has to abandon you, as He did Christ who became sin for us, and you must take the curse of the law...the 2nd death.