As it says in the Sabbath Afternoon section, "All the benefits of the cross are at our disposal through faith in His atoning sacrifice."

The cross was a revelation of the truth: the truth about God, about us, and about sin. That truth draws us to repentance:



Salvation and forgiveness come when we respond to the light shining from the cross.

To answer your question, no, the cross is not sufficient of itself for our salvation/forgiveness because that depends upon our response. The cross is means by which we are drawn to God, but although God has given His all to us in Christ, we can still refuse to respond to His drawing.

Another reason why Jesus could not remain in the grave is due to the fact Satan must die with the sins of the saved in the lake of fire. Jesus earned the right on the cross to own the sins and second death of mankind by consuming and conquering them. To eliminate them Jesus must place them upon the head of Satan and upon the heads of the unsaved. To do this He must be alive.

Jesus must also be alive to mediate on behalf of the saved in the heavenly sanctuary. Without it mankind cannot approach the throne of God. We would have to die the second death with our sins in order to eliminate sin and death from the Universe. Of course, if Jesus did not rise from the grave God would be forced to destroy all FMAs because He would be unable to retain their respect and obedience.

The theory of MM's post is all true, but positively & pragmatically speaking Jesus' entire experience - including his resurrection is essential to the Gospel for us & in us!

Rom 4:25 may accurately also be translated:"He was lifted up because of our offences, and he was raised up because of our justification." We can die to sin and self because of his death, as that text says, and we can be born again solely because of his resurrection: thus the Gospel of salvation commenses with the resurrection, by which event the Pioneer and Perfector of our faith had completed "the faith of Jesus" for us - not before. To put it another way, if Christ be not raised from the dead, then there is no way for us to be reborn, born from above or however else you wish to express justification by faith.

Yes, there would be no Gospel at all!

This isn't true. First of all, sins are wrong actions and thoughts. These are not things which can be transferred from one being to another. The placing of the hands upon the scape goat by the strong man represents the scape goat bearing the responsibility for the sins he has caused. This applies not only to the sins of the saved, but the lost as well.





Sin abides in only one place, and that is in the mind of those who cherish it. We will only have to die the second death to eliminate sin and death from the Universe if we insist on clinging to it.

If so, in what sense did Jesus bear our sins? And in what sense did our guilt crush Him?

Was it merely a matter of extreme empathy? If so, the Father, who would be at least as empathetic as Jesus, would also have borne our sins and guilt. Moreover, assuming they are as empathetic today as they were then, they are still bearing our sins and guilt.

I also agree with the following from Monday's study:

The Plan of Salvation didn't end at the Cross, but continued through His resurrection and ascension into Heaven where He is our Mediator before the Father. This is part of His work as our High Priest.

Good observations. A couple of passages which touch on these points.

Here's a thought from Waggoner in regards to Christ's mediation:

A different angle needs consideration here, this week, I think: Is Christ's ministry of atonement today really a "benefit" of the cross - an extension or part of the cross, or worthy of being identified and called a separate, extra work of salvation, based on the cross but different from it, like the role of the sacrifice is separate from the role of the priest?

Ever since the meaning of "benefits" of the cross or atonement (whatever SOP actually wrote about "benefits") was misstated in QOD to be mediation as commonly understood within the Reformation theology rather than the stronger character cleansing of full righteousness which we held to be the case, the use of the phrase has never really recovered the undiluted strength meant by Ellen White. Present atonement is also mentioned in the lesson, and Christ's on-going work today as High Priest is well stated and included this time, but the power of Christ's work in heaven isn't well distinguished from his preparatory work when God gave him to & for the earth.

Christ's death enabled us to be forgiven and reborn, ie. justified by faith, but his mediation isn't an application by him of his death to our lives as we work with him: he applies his life to us - his shed blood, having been necessary for the remission of sin in our justification, symbolising the life of the Lamb of God - as he imparts his character traits to our exercise of the justified mind of Christ he imputed to us to qualify us for heaven. That we receive his life traits day by day, as we renew & exercise our justified attitude/mind daily, makes Christ's mediatorial work as High Priest for us such a different purpose and scope of work to him giving his life for us, that it is more than the sound and sense of "benefits" of the cross. Renewal and transformation is so much more than the completed, righteous sacrifice of the atonement, that the finishing of the atonement by Christ working in us and not just for us warrants its own name: proud to refer to it as Christ's sanctuary service, ministry of final atonement, or something like that.

This line from Monday's section highlights the misunderstanding endemic perhaps in our thinking about Christ's intercession for us - pertaining to the finishing of the gospel mystery in us: God's glory restored.

We experience Christ's righteousness, as babes of the faith and as the mature saints who give a witness of kingdom to the whole world and receive the seal of God, by Christ working in us, not just for us. It is commonly taught that Christ's work on earth, to obtain salvation for mankind, was work for us, and that his intercession to make us righteous by faith is work in us, yet this sentence from the lesson misstates this intercession in us as understood by Sunday church theology to be forensic justification for us without any actual true inner character transformation of sanctification in us, since there is no effective renewal of the heart effected in us with justification. They may speak of rebirth by the Spirit, but they allocate no occasion for it in their theology.

This sentence from the lesson must therefore be changed by the word "for" being replaced by "in" or our understanding of the intercession of Christ for us is sorely mistaken.

Tom, in a similar way, but for entirely different reasons, Satan, like Jesus, will suffer with the sins of the saved. He will also suffer for the sins he tempted the lost to commit, but he will not suffer with the sins they committed - they will do that themselves.

Also, you quoted - "The scene on Calvary was the manifestation of what has taken place as long as sin has existed, and will take place until every man is saved who is willing to be saved: Christ bearing the sins of the world. He bears them now. (The Glad Tidings)

I disagree. Unless I am misunderstanding what Waggoner wrote here. Jesus did more than bear about in His body the sins of the world on Calvary. He was punished for them. He paid our sin debt of death for them on cross. He did not do this before Calvary and neither has He been doing it since. He died "once" for sins on the cross. He has not been dying for sins all along.

I disagree with this, too. Angels have always had direct access to God the Father. While Jesus was sojourning among us He wasn't in heaven to supposedly mediate between God and angels. Are we to assume, then, that during the time Jesus was here angels did not have access to God? If so, why does the sanctuary portray two angels standing on either side of the throne of God? Why are angels portrayed on the walls surrounding the MHP? Were they forced out of God's presence while Jesus was here?

Satan suffers for his responsibility, not as an arbitrary judgment that God foists upon him, but as the natural consequence with the truth being revealed to him, and the impact that has upon conscience.

Satan's suffering in relation to our sins is not similar to Jesus' suffering. The primary factor is not at all that the reasons for the suffering are different. The mechanism which causes the suffering is completely different.



It looks like you are.



Waggoner said nothing about this. Why not focus on what Waggoner actually said?



It doesn't look like you've understand what was being said here either. It's not a physical application, but a spiritual one. Angels have access to God spiritually by way of Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ is the One who reveals the father, for both man and angels, and every created being.

While all heaven suffered, not all heaven is our propitiation. Is there no unique sense in which Christ bore our sins and guilt? If there is, then what is it?

Backing up a bit, was not sin transferred to Jesus - the Lamb - such that He suffered the wrath and retribution of God?

I would prefer to see it read as both for us and in us in that sentence.

Regarding the unique sense in which Christ bore our sins and guilt:



I know this description is talking about a somewhat different circumstance, but I see the same principle applying. Jesus Christ was a man, and as a man He could perceive things in a way an angel could not. As John says, "He knew what was in a man." As God, He had a depth of capacity for suffering and understanding that a mere man would not have, as well as having a perception unclouded by sin.

Regarding sin and the lamb, this is a metaphor, a symbol. Sin is transgression of the law; wrong acts, thoughts and decisions. This cannot literally be transferred from one being to another. The idea of the symbol is that Jesus Christ, the innocent (like a lamb) suffered on behalf of the guilty. As the SOP puts it:



This is remeniscent of the suffering servant:



Regarding the wrath and retribution of God, the wrath of God is His giving over the "victim" of His wrath to the result of his choice. For example:



We see this same principle at work in regards to Christ:



Also:



So the wrath of God was revealed against Christ in that God delivered Him up to His enemies, and to the result of our sin, for Christ to receive the result of His choice, which was to voluntarily bear our sin in our behalf.

Why? If Jesus' only purpose in dying was to impress sinners with the self-sacrificing love of God and in turn hope to motivate them to repent and obey God, why would He have to bear the sins of the world, why would He have to suffer as a sinner? Wouldn't it suffice to simply suffer soul anguish and die? Why did the Father have to withdraw His sweet presence? Why did He have to treat Jesus as though He committed the sins of the world?

If the only purpose is what I stated above, it seems like cruel overkill for the Father to also unleash His undiluted wrath upon Jesus. Seems to me it would be more in keeping with this purpose to simply have Jesus lay down on an altar and let the Father slay Him like in the story of Abraham and Isaac. No need to confuse the issue by unnecessarily making Jesus suffer and die for the sins of the world.

Jesus' whole purpose, as EGW put it, was "the revelation of God." Christ's taking our sin is a part of that revelation. God was actually was close to Christ than at any other time as He was on the cross:



So we can conclude that the Father did not withdraw His presence, since He did the opposite, but He did not reveal that presence, nor was Christ comforted by it.



I'm not sure what you mean by this.



This is a misleading way of putting this, especially the word "unleash," but the reason was that this was necessary in order to reveal truth.



This couldn't have been seen apart from Christ's death. This is just one thing. The chapter "It Is Finished" brings out a number of other things, as does Scripture.

The wrath of God, as I pointed out in my post, is God's "giving up" the victim of His wrath. In the case of Christ, this was necessary to reveal truth.



The purpose was to demonstrate the opposite of this, as DA 764 points out (it being sin that kills, not God), so this would hardly be helpful.

How did Jesus' agonizing death on the cross reveal the love of God? How did God hiding His face reveal His love? It seems pointless, if not cruel and unusual, to submit to torture and death for no other reason than to demonstrate the love of God. Voluntarily permitting sinners to torture and kill you, when escape was within reason, seems melodramatic at best if no other purpose is served. It's a complete waste of life. Jesus sufficiently demonstrated the love of God before He willingly submitted to torture and death.

Unless, of course, His torture and death were needed to also demonstrate the inevitable results of sinning from which Jesus seeks to save us. But, according to your view of justice and judgment, what Jesus suffered at the hands of sinners is not the inevitable results of sinning. So, I am still puzzled by your ideas as to why Jesus had to suffer and die as a sinner.

Hopefully this is a rhetorical question, but here's one way:





This wasn't the only reason. If you read "It Is Finished," EGW speaks for 7 pages on what Christ's death accomplished. God's love is revealed in that He was willing to "deliver up" His Son for our salvation.



His death accomplished other things as well. Again, consider the above mentioned chapter.



Yes, this is one of the other things.



I'm sort of puzzled by your conclusion here. I've quoted the following many times:



This is in the "It Is Finished" chapter, which speaks of the things which Christ's death accomplished. What Christ experienced has to be the inevitable result of sin in order for what she wrote here to make sense, right? It certainly seems clear to me that this is the case.

Tom, you seemed to have missed the point. The point is Jesus sufficiently demonstrated the love of God before He willingly submitted to torture and death. Therefore, enduring the hiding of His Father's face while paying our sin debt of death also satisfied the just and loving demands of law and justice, namely, death must happen in consequence of man's sin.


This quote addresses Satan - not Jesus. Besides that, your quote doesn't address my point. Here it is again: What Jesus suffered at the hands of sinners is not the inevitable results of sinning. So, His torture at the hands of sinners does not demonstrate the inevitable results of sinning. Which begs the question: What purpose did it serve? Why did He submit to it?

Why do you assert this? Paul says:



Is there any doubt that it was the cross which inspired Paul to write this?

What in Christ's life reveals God's character so clearly as the latter scenes, up to and including His crucifixion? I can think of nothing which reveals God more clearly than this:



This is breathtakingly beautiful!



The "therefore" doesn't follow. Even if your premise were true, it still wouldn't follow. All one could assert was there was some other reason for which Christ had to die, not that it was this one. Do you understand this point?



This was in a chapter discussing what Jesus' death accomplished! Everything in the chapter is addressing the death of Christ. The title of the chapter is "It Is Finished."



Your premise is faulty, so your conclusion doesn't follow. Regarding the purpose it serves, read "It Is Finished"! There's seven pages of what purpose it served.

Tom, do you agree that Jesus sufficiently demonstrated the love of God before He submitted to torture at the hands of sinners?

Do you agree that what Jesus suffered at the hands of sinners is not the inevitable results of sinning?

NOTE: Please understand that these questions do not imply Jesus did not demonstrate the love of God by submitting to torture at the hands of sinners.

Before His death, not enough had been revealed to resolve the Great Controversy.



No.



Ok.

What did submitting to torture at the hands of sinners reveal and resolve about the GC that hadn't already been revealed and resolved?


What do you think is the inevitable results of sinning? Is suffering at the hands of sinners the inevitable results of sinning? Please support your answer with inspired passages. Monosyllabic answers are rarely sufficient. Thank you.

The cross revealed the character of God, the character of Satan, the nature of sin, of death, and of our character (i.e., of unregenerate man).



As I've been discussing, death, the second death. That doesn't mean other things don't result from sin, but this has been the context of my discussion.



The cross demonstrates the sinful heart of man.

Are you saying none of these things were clearly revealed before Jesus was tortured at the hands of sinners?

Also, is torture received at the hands of sinners an aspect of the inevitable result of sin? I'm asking this question again because I didn't understand your answer.

PS - I'm trying to understand why you think it was necessary for Jesus to suffer torture at the hands of sinners in order to reveal and resolve the things you named above, namely, the character of God, the character of Satan, the nature of sin, of death, and the character of unregenerate man. It seems to me these things were clearly revealed before Jesus entered Gethsemane. Could it be there were other reasons why Jesus had to die the way He did (as opposed to laying down on an altar as in the case of Abraham and Isaac).

The cross revealed these things more clearly than anything else. I haven't spoken to "torture received at the hands of sinners." I've spoken of the cross, which encompasses more than that.

Your question, as asked, (i.e. "Also, is torture received at the hands of sinners an aspect of the inevitable result of sin?") strikes me as a bit vague. I would say that what happened to Christ was inevitable in the sense that this is how evil beings treat God given the opportunity, but I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at.



Again, the cross is no limited to "torture at the hands of sinners," although that's certainly a big part of it.

Regarding why Christ died at Calvary as opposed to Gethsemane, this question seems to me to be more pertinent to your point of view than mine. If Christ's death was simply for the purpose of earning the right for God to be able to legally pardon, why couldn't it have happened in Gethsemane as opposed to Calvary?

Assuming that Christ's death accomplished a revelation of truth encompassing God, Satan, sin, and ourselves, it's difficult to see how Gethsemane could accomplish this as the cross did. In particular, the cross vividly depicts the sinful heart of man, in choosing to free Barabbas as opposed to Christ, mocking Him, spitting on Him, scouring Him, and crucifying Him. It also publicly manifested God's character in such trying circumstances, in Christ tender regard for His mother, in His prayer that God "forgive them, for they know not what they do," and in other ways.

it does seem clear. but does it seem clear after the fact? i mean we have egw who explains it all. but according to her the unfallen angels didnt get it until the cross. go figure!

maybe we forget without egw we wouldnt know a fraction of what we know.

The revelation of God's willingness to suffer is clear, most vividly in the cross - that it was "for others" isn't quite that obvious, though, so why a Roman execution?

This bit

...is clarified by the Apostle Paul who writes that Christ was hanged on a tree to suffer the curse of the law for us, as us: it's what proved Jesus' Messiahship to a Pharisee!! - to one who knew the writte word b a c k to f r o n t; that was't possible in Gethsemane! Oh,...he's in the Bible, so his position is authoritative.

What does "the curse of the law" mean to you, for to me it means the barrier to forgiveness which Christ's death removes at no cost to me other than having to confess my sins to him directly.

If I understood you Colin, I agree. Christ's death had to be in a way that was a public revelation that He was the Messiah, which Calvary did, but Gethsemane could not have.

Christ's being a "curse" to me means that He was "abandoned of God." The Pharisees had the idea that if they could get Christ crucified, this would prove He wasn't the Messiah, because God would never allow His chosen One, so they reasoned, to be crucified (since he who dies on a tree is accursed). But, ironically, as you point out, to a Pharisee who understood the Scriptures more deeply, this actually proved what they were trying to disprove!

Here's a thought from Waggoner regarding Christ's being made a curse for us:

That "Christ died for the ungodly" is evident to all who read the Bible. He "was delivered for our offenses." Rom.4:25. The Innocent suffered for the guilty; the Just for the unjust. "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Is.53:5,6. But death came by sin. Death is the curse that has passed upon all men, simply because "all have sinned." So, as Christ was "made a curse for us," it follows that Christ was "made to be sin on our behalf." 2Cor.5:21, R.V. He bore "our sins in His own body" up to the tree. 1Pet.2:24, margin. Note that our sins were "in His body." It was no superficial work that He undertook. The sins were not merely figuratively laid on Him, but they were actually in Him. He was made a curse for us, made to be sin for us, and consequently suffered death for us.

To some this truth seems repugnant; to the Greeks it is foolishness, and to the Jews a stumbling-block, but "to us who are saved, it is the power of God." For bear in mind that it was our sins that He bore in His own body--not His own sins. The same scripture that tells us that He was made to be sin for us, assures us that He "knew no sin." The same text that tells us that He carried our sins "in His own body," is careful to let us know that He "did no sin." The fact that He could carry our sin about with Him, and in Him, being actually made to be sin for us, and yet not do any sin, is to His everlasting glory and our eternal salvation from sin. All the sins of all men were on Him, yet no person ever discovered the trace of sin upon Him. No sin was ever manifested in His life, although He took all sin upon Himself. He received it and swallowed it up by the power of the endless life in which He swallows up death. He can bear sin, and yet be untainted by it. It is by this marvelous life that He redeems us. He gives us His life, so that we may be freed from every taint of the sin that is in our flesh.

Christ, "in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death," "was heard in that He feared." Heb.5:7. But He died! Yes; but no one took His life from Him; He laid it down, that He might take it again. John 10:17,18. The pangs of death were loosed, "because it was not possible that He should be holden of it." Acts 2:24. Why was it not possible for death to hold Him, even though He voluntarily put Himself in its power?--Because He "knew no sin;" He took sin upon Himself, but was saved from its power. He was "in all things" "made like unto His brethren," "in all points tempted like as we are" (Heb.2:17; 4:15), and since He could of Himself do nothing (John 5:30), He prayed to the Father to keep Him from being overcome and thereby falling under the power of death. And He was heard. In His case these words were fulfilled: "The Lord God will help Me; therefore shall I not be confounded; therefore have I set My face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed. He is near that justifieth Me; who will contend with Me?" Is.50:7,8.

Whose sin was it that thus oppressed Him, and from which He was delivered?--Not His own, for He had none. It was your sin and mine. Our sins have already been overcome--vanquished. We have to fight only with an already defeated foe. When you come to God "in the name of Jesus," having surrendered yourself to His death and life, so that you do not bear His name in vain, because Christ liveth in you, you have only to remember that every sin was on Him, and is still on Him, and that He is the conqueror, and straightway you will say, "Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." "Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savor of His knowledge by us in every place." 2Cor.2:14.

I also like this thought:

Never was the Son of God more beloved by His Father, by the heavenly family, and by the inhabitants of the unfallen worlds, than when He humbled Himself to bear disgrace, humiliation, shame, and abuse. By becoming the sin bearer, He lifted from the human race the curse of sin. In His own body He paid the penalty of that on which the power of Satan over humanity is founded--sin (YI June 28, 1900). {7BC 924.5}

Yes, that is nice. Shades of Isa. 53.

By paying our sin debt of death on the cross Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law. He thereby earned the right to serve before God as our Advocate. This important accomplishment seems to be missing from your list of reasons why Jesus had to die on the cross. As sinners, the human race was under the curse of the law, which means we were on death row.

But Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law, from death row, by living and dying the perfect life and death. His death satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice, which require God to execute the death penalty in consequence of the sins of the world. Death must happen in consequence of sin. Justice must be served. Sinners must suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness and then die eternally.

Law and justice, however, were served and satisfied by the substitutionary death of Jesus. So far as law and justice are concerned penitent sinners have paid the price of death for their sins in the suffering and death Jesus experienced while He was here. His death is accepted as if they themselves died in consequence of the sins they committed. They died and were buried and rose again as new creatures in Christ. They stand before God and the Universe as sinless as did A&E before they fell.

The following passages support this aspect as to why Jesus had to die, as to what His death accomplished in relation to law and justice and the death penalty:


Again, the quotes posted above make it clear that the most important reason why Jesus had to die, so far as our pardon and salvation is concerned, was to pay our sin debt of death, to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice, to honor and glorify the law and love of God.


By "inevitable result of sin" I'm referring to the way it is used in the following DA quote:


Is torture at the hands of sinners an aspect of the "inevitable result of sin" in the sense it is used above?


Why indeed? If sinners had embraced Jesus as their Savior and Sin-Substitute, instead of rejecting Him, His death would have still been necessary in order for God to earn the right to pardon and save them. Why? Because law and justice demand death for sin. Repentance and obedience are not enough to secure pardon for past sins. "Death must come in consequence of man's sin."

If sinners had embraced Jesus, the requirement of His substitutionary death would have played out very much differently. For example, it would not have involved torture at the hands of sinners. Most likely Jesus would have laid down and died on an altar. Such a nonviolent death would have satisfied the just and loving demands of law and justice.

Such a death would have also accomplished everything else He set out to do in paying our sin debt of death. For example, Satan would have been unmasked before the unfallen worlds. The justice and mercy would have kissed at the altar. The nature of sin and salvation would have been revealed. The loving, self-sacrificing character of God would have been demonstrated. Everything would have turned out the same as it did on the cross had Jesus been embraced by sinners and then simply laid down and died on an altar.


I disagree for the reasons stated above. Such a violent and cruel death at the hands of sinners was not necessary for Jesus to accomplish everything He needed to accomplish in paying our sin debt of death. Nor was such a violent death at the hands of sinners necessary to demonstrate the nature of sin and sinners or to expose Satan as a liar and a deceiver. Nor was it needful to more clearly reveal the love of God. All these important aspects were clearly revealed before Jesus suffered and died on the cross.

Here Ellen very eloquently explains why Jesus had to die. Jesus had to die to redeem us from the curse of the law because death must come in consequence of man's sin. Only thus could Jesus pardon and save penitent sinners.

In the Garden of Gethsemane Christ suffered in man's stead, and the human nature of the Son of God staggered under the terrible horror of the guilt of sin, until from His pale and quivering lips was forced the agonizing cry, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." . . . Human nature would then and there have died under the horror of the sense of sin, had not an angel from heaven strengthened Him to bear the agony. . . . Christ was suffering the death that was pronounced upon the transgressors of God's law. {AG 168.2}

It is a fearful thing for the unrepenting sinner to fall into the hands of the living God. This is proved by the history of the destruction of the old world by a flood, by the record of the fire which fell from heaven and destroyed the inhabitants of Sodom. But never was this proved to so great an extent as in the agony of Christ, the Son of the infinite God, when he bore the wrath of God for a sinful world. It was in consequence of sin, the transgression of God's law, that the Garden of Gethsemane has become pre-eminently the place of suffering to a sinful world. No sorrow, no agony, can measure with that which was endured by the Son of God. {AG 168.3}

Man has not been made a sin-bearer, and he will never know the horror of the curse of sin which the Saviour bore. No sorrow can bear any comparison with the sorrow of Him upon whom the wrath of God fell with overwhelming force. Human nature can endure but a limited amount of test and trial. The finite can only endure the finite measure, and human nature succumbs; but the nature of Christ had a greater capacity for suffering. . . . The agony which Christ endured, broadens, deepens, and gives a more extended conception of the character of sin, and the character of the retribution which God will bring upon those who continue in sin. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ to the repenting, believing sinner. {AG 168.4}

The sword of justice was unsheathed, and the wrath of God against iniquity rested upon man's substitute, Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father. {AG 168.5}

This list if of things mentioned in the chapter "It Is Finished." Is this mentioned there? If it is, then you're right, I missed this. (If not, then you misspoke). This statement here is along the lines of Paul's thought expressed in Hebrews 2.

Regarding what you wrote after this, you view sin as something innocuous of itself, which only results in death because God kills those who practice it. I disagree, viewing that sin has "fatal effects" from which one must be "healed." (PP 431)



Not one of these passages says that Jesus had to die in order for God to have the legal right to pardon us.



Where do you get "most important reason" from?

Here's the PP statement I referred to earlier:



I submit that this is the most important reason Christ had to die, as far as our pardon and salvation is concerned, which isn't really disagreeing with what you wrote, since I believe this is speaking of the same thing.

The sinner receives pardon through faith in the atoning sacrifice. The "fatal effects" of sin can only be healed by this manner.



No. On the cross, Christ experienced the second death, which is the inevitable result of sin. This is what EGW is referring to in DA 764.



God, of course, has no need to "earn the right" to do anything; He is the Sovereign of the Universe.



So God is beholden to His law? Say God had not written out the law; would He still have had to earn this right to pardon?



For pardon to occur there must be willingness on the part of the offended party to forgive, and a desire to be pardoned on the party of the guilty party. God always had the willingness to pardon; that never changed. What was necessary for man to become willing to be pardoned, which God effected through the cross, as Fifield eloquently points out here:





The inevitable result of sin is death.



This is missing the whole point. If sinners had embraced Jesus, His substitutionary death would not have been necessary, because they would have already been reconciled! The purpose of Christ's death, was to "bring us to God."





It was the cross which unmasked Satan. How would laying down to die on an altar have unmasked Satan?



Nothing would have turned out the same if Jesus had been embraced by sinners. It is totally impossible for this to have happened; this is ignoring the reality of sin. The carnal heart is "enmity with God." It is not possible for enemies of God to embrace Him! What needs to happen is for enemies to be converted into friends, which is precisely what the cross does -- it leads us to repentance.

Regarding #106429, yes, the suffering that Christ endured as He experienced the second death was terrible, beyond our ability to comprehend. Yet the purpose was not to move God, but to move us.