Agreed. Ok, here goes (rest is Ty -- hey, only 4 typos to correct)

"Clouds and darkness surround Him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne."

A contrast is here drawn between "darkness" and "righteousness." "Righteousness" is a character word, defining thoughts and feelings and behavior. Therefore the "darkness" here mentioned must also be a character word. The inspired word says, in essence, "Darkness surrounds the character of God, but the fact is that the righteousness is the true essence of His Character."

God may look bad to us, but in reality He's good. There is a kind of spiritual darkness that clouds our ideas about God. However, that darkness is present in our perception and does not arise out of His true identity. We don't see God as He really is. Somehow, by some means, we humans have come to view His character in a false light.

But how? And what is the nature of this darkness?

Human perception of the divine character was first distorted in the hearts and minds of our original parents, Adam and Eve. The account given in Scripture is very enlightening.

Basically what happened was this: God's archenemy, Satan, told Adam and Eve a two-pronged lie about God's character. (1) God cannot be trusted (2) because He is totally self-serving and does not have your best interest at heart. Satan painted a new picture of God, and we became rebels by believing that dark portrait. Notice how the father of lies framed his case against the Creator:

(Gen. 3:1-5 quoted)

The first things we want to notice is the word "subtil" in verse one. Satan approached with an intent to deceive, to lead humanity to believe an untruth about God.

Don't overlook the underlying point of his falsehood. Read between the lines. When Satan uttered the words, "Yea, hath God said?..." he placed a question mark on God's word, bringing His very integrity under suspicion. He communicated into the human heart an idea of mistrust toward the Lord. Then he proceeded to blatantly contradict what God had said: "Ye shall not surely die." The insinuation is evident: "I know God said you'll die if you eat this fruit, but I'm telling you no such thing will happen. God is a liar. He cannot be trusted."

If that wasn't bad enough, the next things Satan said made the lie even more dark and tempting. "The whole reason why God has lied to you is because he knows that if you eat this desirable fruit you'll be exalted to equality with Him. He is totally selfish and doesn't want you to break up His monopoly on this higher state of freedom and pleasure. He doesn't love you. He only cares about Himself. Break free from His tyrannical rule."

On the inner canvas of human imagination Satan painted God in his own ugly image, in the dark hues of dishonesty and selfishness. Because the temptation was woven out of a subtle misrepresentation of God's character, the sin problem is far deeper than mere behavioral misconduct. When Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, they had, in effect, believed what Satan said about God. As a result, their perception of God's character was drastically altered. Whereas once they believed Him to be a God of infinite love who desired their eternal happiness, now they believed He was untrustworthy and self-serving.

It is here, at the level of perception and belief that the darkening of God's character occurred in the human soul. We now imagine our Maker to be someone He is not, and that distorted picture has deeply wounded our capacity to related to God with love and trust. This is why the Bible defines sin in terms of its effect on relationship with God and our ability to see Him clearly: "Your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you" (Isa. 59:2 NKJV). God has not arbitrarily rejected mankind and angrily turned away. Rather, sin has imposed upon the human heart an emotional and psychological barrier that separates us from God. Sin itself, by virtue of what it is, has hidden God's character from our hearts and minds. Because of sin, there are things we believe about God that are not true. Sin is a deceptive, dimming influence that clouds our perception of the One who made us. The rest of the story explains, in psychological terms, how sin does this to us.

The immediate effect of sin on Adam and Eve was to awaken in them a sense of condemnation and guilt: "The eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked" (Gen. 3:7). The "eyes" here mentioned are not the literal eyeballs with which we see our physical surroundings, but rather a metaphor to indicate the inner eyes of conscience with which we sense either guilt or innocence. Adam and Eve became conscious of their wrongdoing and began to experience the psychological phenomenon of guilt.

Notice what happened next: "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day; and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden" (Gen. 3:8)

Strange, new impulse! Those who just yesterday felt completely comfortable in God's presence now feel a compelling drive to hide from Him.

"And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, "Where are thou?" (Gen. 3:9) As if God didn't know the exact tree they were hiding behind. Of course He knew where they were, but He approached with a gentle wooing calculated to reconcile rather than further alienate. The fact that Adam and Eve willingly came out of their hiding place indicates that God's tone of voice and attitude must have been flooded with compassion rather than condemnation.

When Adam spoke to the Lord he revealed the source of their new impulse hide: "I heard They voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself" (Gen. 3:10).

Afraid of God?
But why?
They were never afraid of Him before.
Had God changed in some way?
No!

"For I am the Lord, I change not" (Mal. 3:6). "The same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8). He still loved them and cared for them just the same. But *they* had changed. Now they could not see His goodness. The natural result of sin is to exclude man from God's love from man's perspective. Those feelings are directly derived from the effect of sin itself upon the conscience, they are not arbitrarily imposed by an attitude of condemnation assumed by God. He remains unchanged, but sin changes us. Our sin does not alter god's love, rather it erects a wall of separation for which our sin is the cause, not God.

Take not of the fact that Adam and eve were afraid of God because of the guilt they felt inside themselves. Here is a crucial key to understanding the sin problem. Because sin involved embracing a distorted view of God's character, they imagined that the condemnation they felt was proceeding from God. Hence they were afraid of Him. They could not longer sense His love and acceptance due to the deceptive influence of their rebellion.

Sin is a reality-blurring force, bringing dark emotions into the soul. It presses the mind to see God in a false light. It tells the heart that God rejects and condemns the sinner along with the sin. Shattered innocence, leading to a confused mixture of self-hatred and self-justification, is organic to sin's very nature. God does condemn sin. He cannot do otherwise. But He continues to love the sinner. The condemnation we feel is in the sin, not in God.

??? What is the difference between hatred for sin and abhorrence of sin?


What need is there to complicate things? Who said Habakkuk is arguing for Reformist atonement theology? He is just saying that God cannot endure the presence of sin.


There is also a legal aspect in imputed righteousness, and this legal aspect consists in the sinner's being declared righteous without in fact being righteous. It's this point which does not make sense in your theology.

"The great work that is wrought for the sinner who is spotted and stained by evil is the work of justification. By Him who speaketh truth he is declared righteous. The Lord imputes unto the believer the righteousness of Christ and pronounces him righteous before the universe. He transfers his sins to Jesus, the sinner's representative, substitute, and surety. Upon Christ He lays the iniquity of every soul that believeth. 'He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' 2 Cor. 5:21. . . ." {FLB 112.4}

Take a look, for instance, at what is said here:

“The prayer and praise and confession of God's people ascend as sacrifices to the heavenly sanctuary. But they ascend not in spotless purity. Passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless purified by the righteousness of the great High Priest, they are not acceptable by God. Christ gathers into the censer the prayers, the praise, and the sacrifices of his people, and with these he puts the merits of his spotless righteousness. Then, perfumed with the incense of Christ's propitiation, our prayers, wholly and entirely acceptable, rise before God, and gracious answers are returned.” {YI, April 16, 1903 par. 12}

Even our prayers and confessions are so defiled by sin that they must be purified by Christ’s righteousness before they are acceptable by God.


Well, I quoted the Bible and quoted Ellen White, but you don’t seem to accept either.

“He [God] cannot endure the presence of sin. It is the thing that his soul hates.” {SpTA01a 4.1}


This factor is consequential. Sin causes us to be unable to endure God's presence because of God's nature. His nature is such that it makes us aware of our sin.


And where is it said that we need a Mediator because sin has damaged our nature and will make us die if we approach God? I'm not saying this is not true, just that the Bible is not a book of systematic theology. The concepts are there, but not in a systematic form.

Rosangela, I'm going to respond to you comments point by point, but I'd like to point out that no one has presented any case that it is God's hatred of sin the necessitates our needing a Mediator. Now there's no need to point out that God hates sin. That's a given. But where is there anything in Scripture that teaches that this is why we need a Mediator?

In your previous post you wrote:



This is exactly right! This is why we need a Mediator.




If you read the statements in context, it's easy to see what they mean. In the first one, my point was that holiness is not only "hatred for sin." Holiness includes this, but includes much more. In the second my point was that the fact that God is good is the reason that He abhors sin (because any good being will abhor a thing which is evil).



It's obvious. The author is practically quoting Calvin, and quotes Habakkuk as support for doing so.



But this isn't Habakkuk point at all. Again, here is what Habakkuk said:



His point is that God is righteous, and, given that He is righteous, why isn't He doing something about the injustice going on. His point is not that God literally cannot look at sin. Habukkuk's point has absolutely nothing to do with what the author said, which is that God's hatred for sin necessitates our having a Mediator.



I quoted quite a lot to establish what "imputed righteousness" means. Let's limit my quotes to simply what Waggoner presented. I have two questions.

1.Do you see any difference in my theology, in relation to the question we are presently discussing (imputed righteousness) and Waggoner's?

2.Do you think that Waggoner's position "does not make sense"?



Don't you think it would be a good idea to omit statements like this? You should be able to see they apply as much to you as to me. That is, I present statements to you, and you disagree with them. You disagree, but put it in terms of disagreeing with my interpretation of what Scripture or Ellen White is saying. You wouldn't say you disagree with Scripture or Ellen White. So why apply a different standard upon me than you would have applied to yourself?



First of all, it looks like perhaps you are misunderstanding what she is saying. When she says "God cannot endure the presence of sin" she means exactly the same thing Habakkuk said when he said, "you cannot tolerate wrong." (Hab. 1:13)

For example, she writes:



It is clear that she has what Habakkuk said in mind in the use of this phrase.

Now that God hates sin, is self-evident. I don't know why you keep bringing up this point. It's obvious, and I've been agreeing with it the whole time.



! This is the whole point. We need to be healed from the impact of sin so we can be in His presence.



God has the same nature in His relationship to all creatures. He hates sin equally, no matter who He is dealing with. Yet none of the other creatures needs a Mediator (in the salvific sense). Why not? Because they have no sin.

It is sin which causes the need for a Mediator.



The concepts I've been presented are clearly taught by Jesus.



The whole purpose of His ministry was "to set men right through the revelation of God." This is exactly what Jesus Christ was talking about when He spoke of His being the way, the door, the gate.

I disagree. His point is that God literally cannot look at sin, for sin is repulsive to Him. Since this is the case, how can He permit evil to triumph?


Justification has both a legal aspect and a relational aspect. You quoted a passage from Waggoner emphasizing the relational aspect. But you can’t simply ignore the legal aspect as if it didn’t exist. It does exist, and it does not make sense under your theology. I quoted some passages from Ellen White which deal with the legal aspect. I will quote another couple of quotes:

"The law requires righteousness,--a righteous life, a perfect character; and this man has not to give. He cannot meet the claims of God's holy law. But Christ, coming to the earth as man, lived a holy life, and developed a perfect character. These He offers as a free gift to all who will receive them. His life stands for the life of men. Thus they have remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. [legal aspect] More than this, Christ imbues men with the attributes of God. He builds up the human character after the similitude of the divine character" [relational aspect] {DA 762.2}

"Christ died because there was no other hope for the transgressor. He might try to keep God's law in the future; but the debt which he had incurred in the past remained, and the law must condemn him to death. Christ came to pay that debt for the sinner which it was impossible for him to pay for himself. Thus, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, sinful man was granted another trial." {FW 30.1} [legal aspect]


No, I’m not misunderstanding it. She literally means God cannot endure the presence of sin. Since I had already quoted the whole paragraph in my post before that one, I quoted just the part that was more relevant to answer your comment. But the passage says:

“He [God] cannot endure the presence of sin. It is the thing that his soul hates. Even the angels that stood about his throne, whom he loved, but who kept not their first estate of loyalty, God cast out of heaven with their rebel leader. Holiness is the foundation of God's throne; sin is the opposite of holiness.” {SpTA01a 4.1}

Here she says God cannot tolerate sin in His presence, and that’s why He cast out Lucifer and his angels from heaven.


Of course sin is the problem, but sin causes the need for a Mediator for two reasons, not just one: 1) God, because of His own nature, cannot tolerate sin in His presence; sin is repulsive to Him; and 2) The sinner cannot endure the presence of God because of his sin.


So were the concepts I’ve been presented.


There evidently was a wider purpose in Christ’s coming.

“But it was not merely to accomplish the redemption of man that Christ came to the earth to suffer and to die. He came to ‘magnify the law’ and to ‘make it honorable.’ Not alone that the inhabitants of this world might regard the law as it should be regarded; but it was to demonstrate to all the worlds of the universe that God's law is unchangeable. Could its claims have been set aside, then the Son of God need not have yielded up his life to atone for its transgression. The death of Christ proves it immutable.” {GC 503.1}

So there are two main objectives: 1) to show man and the universe that He is love, and 2) to show man and the universe that His law is immutable. Both are involved in the statement “I am the way.”

How did Christ’s death prove that God’s law is immutable?

I'm going to respond to you comments point by point, but I'd like to point out, again, that no one has presented any case that it is God's hatred of sin the necessitates our needing a Mediator.



There's no way his point is that God literally cannot look at sin. For one thing, this simply isn't true. God can and does literally look at sin. At the time. 24/7. There's no sin that takes place that God literally does not see.

Habakkuk's statement is clearly *not* literal, so trying to interpret it as literal to make some other point that has nothing to do with what Habakkuk is saying is fruitless.



I quoted several translations here to get the sense of what Habakkuk is saying. He is asking why God "beholds the treacherous" when He has "Purer of eyes than to behold evil". There's an irony here. On the one hand, God's eyes are to pure than to behold evil, but on the other, He is beholding evil, the evil of "the treacherous." Habakkuk is asking why God is doing this. If God literally could not look at evil, then He could not literally see the Chaldeans, and Habakkuk's whole point would be lost.

This sums it up well: "You can't put up with the wrong things people do. So why do you put up with those who can't be trusted?"

This is light years away from saying, "You hate evil. Therefore we need a Mediator."



I asked you two questions, and you answered neither one. For convenience, I'll repeat them:



Your point that I quoted a passage from Waggoner emphasizing the relational aspect has the implication that I may not being fair to Waggoner's theology. So I would like to invite you to quote a passage of Waggoner's which emphasizes the legal aspect, and we can discuss this.

Regarding Ellen White, I see the legal aspect as confirming the relational aspect, not as being something separate. From DA 762



Satan was lost because he chose to follow his own selfish, independent will, even though he knew God's character and love. However, man did not know this love, so a revelation of the love could save him.



It is belief in the propitiation that makes it possible for man to be restored to obedience. This fits in with your statement that a Mediator was necessary to bring man back from sin to holiness. It also fits in with Peter's statement:



It is the cross of Christ that leads us to repentance:



How are we saved? By responding to the light shining from the cross, which leads us to repentance.

If the legal ideas you had in regards to EGW's writings were correct, then Christ would have had to die in order for Lucifer to be forgiven. But God offered him pardon over and over again, without Christ's having to have died. But He did. He shouldn't have been able to do this.

Your rebuttal to this is very weak. You argue that Lucifer was less culpable than Eve, which is so obviously false. Here is a description of Lucifer's sin:



Eve did nothing to compare with this. Her heart was not filled with envy and hatred against Christ. She was deceived. Lucifer was not. Her sin was not premeditated. His was. Every mitigating factor points to his sin being more egregious than hers. Yet God offered Lucifer pardon without Christ's having to die. Why? Because of the nature of the problem.

What was necessary for Lucifer to be forgiven?



This was the same condition upon which pardon was offered Eve. Even though her sin was far less than hers (what sin could be greater than seeking the homage of other creatures, by way of stealing them from God through lies?), her case required the sacrifice of Christ, but his did not. Why not?



Lucifer's situation was different than hers. If the problem had been a purely legal one (or had a purely legal aspect to it) then Christ's death would have been necessary just as much for Lucifer as for Eve.

The death of Christ was necessary for one, but not for the other. This difference is easily explained by the DA quote. What was necessary for pardon for both was repentance. Eve needed Christ's sacrifice to repent; Lucifer did not.



If you mean by this that God can not be present where sin is present, this is obviously false. First of all, consider God the Father, or God the Holy Spirit. They are physically present everywhere. If they could not be present where sin is present, they would be nowhere on earth, for there is no place on earth where sin is not present (can you think of anywhere?)

Secondly consider Jesus Christ. He (fully God) was present where sin was. No where is this more evident than on the cross. But throughout His life we see the same thing, Christ ministering to sinners. If He could not be present where sin was, He would have had to have been a hermit, and remained as far as possible away from sinners. This idea was the Pharisees idea. They stayed away from sinners, because they were too holy. Their eyes were "too pure to behold evil," so they remained aloof. They criticized Jesus for the very reason that He fellowshipped with sinners (and where sinners are, there is sin).

It looks like there may be a misunderstanding in taking something literally which should not be taken as such.



Glad we agree on this! You agree, then, that sin is the problem which necessitates a Mediator?



The first one doesn't make sense. Even with a Mediator, sin is just as repulsive to God as without one, nor would He be any more able to tolerate sin in His presence. The second one makes sense.

This puts it eloquently:





Where? I presented examples to support my claim. I asked you to present examples for yours, but you haven't. You just assert it. Where did Jesus teach that because God hates sin it was necessary for Him to become our Mediator?



These are really just one. The following points this out:



The "whole purpose" of Christ's ministry was "to set men right through the revelation of God." Therefore the revelation of God's character both reveals God's love and demonstrates that His law is immutable. The former is obvious, so I won't comment further on it. The second leads to your question:



This is a good question. I'll address this tomorrow.

I’m obviously referring to His immediate presence. That’s why, as Ellen White points out, Lucifer and his angels were cast out from heaven, a passage which, by the way, you didn’t comment upon.
When the human race sinned, they were cut off from communion with God. Part of the reason was that they couldn’t endure God’s presence, but it was also because they couldn’t have access to heaven before being placed on probation and returning again to their loyalty, for God cannot tolerate sin in His presence. Sin cannot enter heaven.


I don’t understand why anyone would question that. Ellen White says,

“The refined sensibilities of His [Christ’s] holy nature rendered contact with evil unspeakably painful to Him” {TMK 34.3}

Christ, the Mediator, had direct contact with sin for 33 years, and the pain He experienced can’t be defined by words. It was this that constituted His sacrifice. There was a sundering of the divine powers because of this. And you still say there was no need for a Mediator? I understand, then, that you think the Godhead should have veiled their divinity during the 6,000-year history of this world and have had constant contact with sin during this period.


Although I haven’t read everything from Waggoner, like you he seems to lay greater stress on the relational aspect of justification. This, however, is unbalanced. Ellen White’s writings, on the other hand, are perfectly balanced between the two.


Please read again what I wrote. I didn’t say his position, or yours, does not make sense, but that imputed righteousness, in its legal aspect, does not make sense under your theology. And in fact it doesn’t. You didn’t comment on the EGW passages I posted. What sense does it make under your theology to say that Christ’s life stands for our life? That since man doesn’t have the perfect character that the law requires Christ’s perfect character stands in place of our character? That even if man tried to keep the law in the future, his past debt of sin remained and the law must condemn him to death, therefore Christ came to pay the debt of man so that he might be granted another trial?


Of course! If there was no sin, there would be no need for a Mediator.


Explained above.


Sorry, I must have missed it. Which examples did you present? And where did Jesus teach that because men couldn’t endure God’s presence it was necessary for Him to become our Mediator? The fact is, the NT uses the word “Mediator” six times, and in none of the cases is it used by Jesus. Also, in none of the cases is it explained why a Mediator is needed.


This, obviously, is not an absolute statement. Other statements make clear that God had in view the whole universe, not just “men.”


OK. I’ll be waiting for it.

I'm going to respond to you comments point by point, but I'd like to point out, again, that no one has presented any case that it is God's hatred of sin the necessitates our needing a Mediator.



I wrote a long response. It's difficult to cover every quote that's cited.

Here's what Jude says:



Jude says they "left".



This is from Job:



Here is Satan in the presence of God, together with other angels. This would seem to be impossible, given the literal stance you're taking.



I don't understand why you keep bringing this up. I've already explained that a)This is obvious b)I believe this.

Of course God hates evil and evil is repugnant to Him.

The assertion is that God's hatred of sin necessitates our having a Mediator. The first part of this has been stipulated. God hates sin. This is settled. There is no need to present any evidence that this is the case.



I didn't say this. The author of the lesson said that we need a Mediator because of God's hatred of sin. I took issue with this, and so far no one has presented any argument that this is the case.

We need a Mediator. You provided a very good reason for this, to lead man from sin back to holiness. I've agreed with this several times. Surely you must have read this. How can you read the following:



and then say





I don't know what this is in reference to. I also don't understand what you're trying to say here nor why.



Then how could Ellen White say Waggoner taught it better than she? How could she have given the endorsements she did?

It seems clear to me that if Ellen White is correct in her endorsements, isn't it more likely that your view is unbalanced rather than his?



Ellen White's writings are in harmony with Waggoner's teachings in regards to righteousness by faith. She endorsed Waggoner's views literally hundreds of times. She said his view of righteousness by faith was direct from the Lord and people who argued against it were fighting against light from heaven. Over and over again.

If she believed her views were correct, and that Waggoner's were incorrect, she could not possibly have endorsed his teachings as she did.

Here's one endorsement, chosen at random:



Good advice!



I read what you wrote, and asked the question I did *because* of what you wrote.

If my position regarding imputed righteousness does not make sense, and my position is the same as Waggoner's, then it follows that his position does not make sense. Since I don't have an EGW endorsements regarding my position, but I do regarding Waggoner's, I am seeking to tie my position to his, so that in rejecting my position you are rejecting his, an assertion much easier for me to deal with than your rejecting mine, since who am I? A no one. But I have received light from heaven (according to EGW) from one of His servants. So I'm asking if you see any difference between what I've been presenting and that light.



This is a deep subject. It really doesn't do it justice to comment on in brief. This is why I invited you to open up a thread to discuss it. If you do so, I'll be happy to discuss it in detail with you. In brief, I will say that there are various models of the atonement, such as Christus Victor, and others, which accept both Christ's being our substitute, and imputed righteousness, which are not penal. The same thing applies in regards to "debt." (i.e., it need not be seen in terms of the penal model) For example, http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_lewisatone.html



So why not leave it at this? Because of sin, we have a need for a Mediator.



Admittedly I didn't do a very full job of this, but at the end of my last post I touched upon this. I'll comment more on Jesus as our Mediator just below. However, I did say something. You've yet to present any argument at all from Jesus Christ, or any other author of Scripture, that Christ became our Mediator because of God's hatred of sin.



He said no one could come to the Father but by Him. He is the way, the gate, the door.

Here's a good explanation by John:



By the way "presence" is your word. The way you phrased it is not something I asserted. I would say that because of sin our perceptions of God's character have become distorted, and we need a revelation of the truth to set us straight. Further I would say that we could not bear a full revelation of God's glory (His glory is His character) and so Christ came to reveal God's glory in a way that we could bear. As a Mediator, He brings us to God. He does this by revealing the truth about God, which leads us to repentance, pardon, and reconciliation, if we do not resist.

Do you agree that Jesus taught this?



"Whole" is "obviously not absolute"? What would be more absolute than "whole"? How could she have more clearly expressed the principle than by the words "whole purpose"?



She is not limiting Christ's work in regards to non-humans, nor even commenting upon it here. Here statement is dealing with Christ's ministry. Christ's ministry was related to man. The whole purpose of His ministry was setting man right by the revelation of God's character. This is obviously dealing with man.

Insofar as what Christ accomplished, as far as man is concerned, it was encompassed by His revealing God to us, by which He reconciles man to God. There is a wonderful explanation of the atonement, and of Mediation, in language a child can understand, and which is thoroughly Biblical.



Ok. Tomorrow is today now, so I'll get that out later today.

This post deals with Christ's death and the immutability of the law.

The following quotes are from George Fifield. The first one is from the chapter "The Sacrifice of Christ Honors God's Law" from the book "God is Love".

I like these very much, and this work is not well known (it was among EGW's bedside reading) so I'm quoting it at length:







The law sets forth the principles of love, which are the basis of God's government. Satan had accused God of being selfish, of not having the best interests of His creatures at heart. Christ's death demonstrates the reverse, that rather than protect His own interests, God would rather die. For the good of His creatures, Christ (who revealed God) was willing to be lost forever. Amazing love!

Since the law rests on the principle of self-sacrificing love, and is a transcript of God's character, by choosing to die, and even be willing to be lost forever, rather than save Himself, God proved that these principles are secure, fixed, immutable. If Christ had acted out of self-interest, to save Himself, Satan's accusations would have been confirmed. By being obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, Christ put the lie to Satan's accusations.

Here’s what Revelation says:

Revelation 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation says they left their habitation because they were “cast out”.

A few passages of Ellen White:

Satan and his sympathizers were expelled from heaven.--1SP 23.
And it was decided that Satan should be expelled from heaven – 1 SG 17
The controversy of Satan did not end when he was expelled from the courts of heaven – ST, Dec 11, 1893
After Satan was expelled from heaven – AG 14
War in heaven was the result, and Satan was expelled. – TDG 256


Many SDA scholars interpret this passage as referring to a meeting of Christ with the representatives of the worlds which must have occurred not in heaven, but in some other place. Because Christ hadn’t yet died to rescue earth from Satan’s dominion, in order to be fair He had to permit Satan to be present as the representative of our world.
However, bear in mind that for God to deal with sinners (fallen angels and fallen men) in these 6,000+ years of sin, He has been putting a constraint upon His own attribute of holiness (since holiness destroys sin). This is an unnatural condition for Him, and I think anyone would agree that this condition is still more difficult and painful when there is need for a direct contact with sin.


I meant, “And you say there was no need for a Mediator in view of God’s holiness (His love for righteousness and abhorrence of sin)?”
One of the reasons for the appointment of a Mediator was to make clear that God is completely separate from sin, and that the salvation of man was only possible through an infinite sacrifice on His part of putting a constraint on His own attributes.
The plan of salvation required a direct contact with sin during some time here on earth. One of the members of the Godhead – appointed as Mediator - proposed to undertake this part of the plan. While this member of the Godhead would put a maximum constraint upon His attribute of holiness (by taking sin upon Himself), another member of the Godhead would let His holiness naturally operate without any constraint – this was what happened on the cross.


The historical context naturally influenced the way he presented the subject. Since he was speaking to legalists, it would be only natural for him to lay a greater stress on the relational aspect. This happened even with the biblical writers – take a look at the difference in emphasis about justification by faith that we see between Paul and James. Ellen White, however, had a broader scope, so she presents both aspects in a more balanced way.


But who said that this is because men couldn’t endure God’s presence? I would use the very same passages and say that Christ is the only way because God can’t forgive sins without His substitutive sacrifice.


Huh? I’ve been using it because of your statement in your post #103423:

<<Secondly, if you are going to assert something like this, it would be good to present some evidence that this is so. Why is this the most important thing? Why couldn't the most important thing be something else? Like, for example, that sin causes us to be unable to endure God's presence?>>


But it’s not this that Ellen White says. In the quote I provided, for instance, she says,

“But it was not merely to accomplish the redemption of man that Christ came to the earth to suffer and to die. He came to ‘magnify the law’ and to ‘make it honorable.’ Not alone that the inhabitants of this world might regard the law as it should be regarded; but it was to demonstrate to all the worlds of the universe that God's law is unchangeable. Could its claims have been set aside, then the Son of God need not have yielded up his life to atone for its transgression. The death of Christ proves it immutable.” {GC 503.1}

So what she is saying is that, because the law is immutable, Christ had to yield up His life to atone for its transgression.

This is from "It Is Finished," in "The Desire of Ages"



The Great Controversy is a war of ideas, not a physical batter (or else God would have won it instantly, eons ago when it began). What is it that caused Satan to be "cast down"? Christ's death. Why? "Satan saw that his disguise was torn away."

Another quote:



Again, the casting down is not physical in nature, but spiritual. The word is "lighted up," resulting in Satan's hold upon souls being broken = "the prince of this world will be cast out."

Rebellion is not to be overcome by force.



Force is not a principle of the Lord; it is not how He obtains victories. It is by the revelation of truth that Satan is overcome.



Even if this didn't occur in heaven, Satan was still in God's presence. If God cannot literally tolerate sin in His physical presence, that shouldn't be possible, right?



I agree that God does this, and this proves that to say that God cannot tolerate sin does not mean literally that God cannot be physically present where sin is. Nor does God need a Mediator in order to do this.



Because of sin, there is a need for the sinner to have a Mediator, because the sinner cannot stand to be in the presence of God. So the sinner relates to the Mediator, who has shrouded His glory, so that the sinner can see the Father, without being destroyed. This requirement is not because of God's hatred of sin, but because of God's character as a whole. There's no reason to limit the requirement to God's hatred of sin.

Since God's holiness is simply God's goodness, if you want to say God's goodness (or holiness) requires a Mediator, I agree with that, since we, as sinners, cannot bear His glory (which is His character, His goodness).



Do you mean as a teaching device?



I guess you're saying here that God had to shroud His glory so that sinners wouldn't be destroyed(?)



That's an interesting way of putting it. This seems OK. (The "taking sin upon Himself" is a bit vague.)



I think Waggoner was dealing with similar issues that we are dealing with. Scott has made this same point. When I present the same arguments Waggoner presented, you naturally disagree with these arguments, just like Butler and Smith did.

There's really very little of Waggoner you agree with. I'd guess at least 95% of the time you disagree with thing I present of his, and I've presented a wide range of quotes from him, not just one or two isolated things where you could argue I was just lucky (or unlucky). There's a disconnect going on here where, on the one hand, you "agree" with a prophet who strongly endorsed the teaching of a person, yet 95%+ of the time you disagree with the teachings of that person! That's quite remarkable.

When I quoted from Waggoner in regards to imputed righteousness, you suggested my quote was emphasizing a particular aspect, while ignoring another. So I have invited you to take *any* quote from his writings dealing with the subject (let's say during the time EGW endorsed him, which was at least from 1888-1896). Waggoner has written hundreds of pages on the subject.

Now if you cannot find a single quote where he disagrees with what I've been presenting on inputed righteousness, isn't it fair to say that his view agrees with mine? Now if his view agrees with mine, and you say my view doesn't make sense (in regards to imputed righteousness; this is the context) then isn't it fair to say that you don't think his view makes sense?

Now for the point. How could Ellen White have endorsed Waggoner's view of righteousness by faith if Waggoner was off base on such a fundamental concept as imputed righteousness?



It's not that God can't forgive sins without a substitutive sacrifice. We know this isn't the case from Lucifer's case. God offered him pardon "again and again." He would have restored him to his position had he "confessed his sin." So there's no doubt God can forgive sin without substitutionary sacrifice.

From Fifield:



This makes sense. From "The Desire of Ages"



So not sacrifice needed for Lucifer (who knew God's character and love, and could repent without the cross) but one for man (who didn't and couldn't).

I don't know if you read the thing I posted for Arnold by Ty Gibson. It explained the sin problem in a way I think makes sense. Sin damages ours minds, and causes us to think things about God which are not true. This impairs our ability to love and trust God, which leads us into more sin, and the cycle continues. The solution?



This first chapter of "The Desire of Ages" has a wonderful explanation of this same thing. By making known the truth about God, Satan's lies are dispelled, and they way is paved for man to be able to love and trust God, which is necessary in order to be obedient to Him.





I understand entering in God's presence to be a spiritual thing, not a physical thing. Iow, man could not have a relationship with God. He needed the revelation of God in order to be set right with God, to use Ellen White's words. According to her, this was the whole purpose of Christ's mission. I believe Jesus was saying the same thing she was when He spoke of the way, the gate, and the door. It's the same idea expressed when He said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." and "To know God is life eternal."





Sure she says these things. The law is a transcript of God's character, rests on the principle of self-sacrificing love, which principles are fixed, secure immutable, proved as such by Christ's death. All these things she affirmed many times.



I agree with this. If the law were not immutable, then God's character would not be immutable, since the law is a transcript of God's character. If God's character were not immutable, the whole issue would have been settled right there (Satan would have been right to question God's character), and the death of Christ would have been irrelevant.