I think their clear intent was that the guy was born in sins, and they weren't. He was beneath them because he was born in sins, which was evidenced by the fact that he was blind. They took the fact that they weren't blind, and he was, as a sign that they were more favored by God than he. That they had not sinned their entire life didn't enter into this at all.



This is commenting on their thoughts in regards to the blind person.




The article said:



Why do you think this is ironic? I think it means just what it says. Because the biblical heores were very, very righteous, it is unthinkable that they should have greviously sinned. "Extraordinarly righteous" means "very obeident." If "righteous" means "never sinned one's whole life" "extraordinarily righteous" wouldn't make sense as a phrase.



Here is Waggoner's argument:



1.The curse comes upon the disobedent.
2.They that are of faith are keepers of the law.
3.Because they are keepers of the law, they are not under the curse.
4.Those who are "of the works of the law" are under a curse because are disobedient to the law.



You were responding to what *I* wrote. I was the one who brought up the question, which still hasn't been answered, which is if Lucifer had accepted God's offer of pardon, what accusation against God would have remained?



Ok, thanks for the clarification. We're in disagreement on this point. I think Jesus Christ taught the essential aspects of the Plan of Salvation.



If God needed Christ's death in order to pardon, then He couldn't have offered Lucifer pardon. But He did offer Lucifer pardon. Therefore Christ's death is not necessary for God.

You asked me what I thought the passage meant. I quote what she said immediately after the part you quoted. I think she explained her meaning. I don't think your suggestion makes sense, as I understand it, that the constraint was upon God. The constraint is upon human beings *receiving* the love of God, not on God's being able to love us. God loves us because He is love. Here's the very next sentence after what you quoted:



This is talking about receiving Christ as one's personal Savior. Doing this allows God's grace and love to be effective.



Did Peter say Christ was crucified and slain?



I was speaking of what being cursed would have meant to a Jew.



There were cultural connotations to the manner of one's death, which this manner of death was dealing with. It wasn't communicating the forensic idea of penalty you are speaking of (which wasn't a part of their thinking), but the idea of dying in a certain manner, indicative of being an outcast of the Covenant community.



I think this statement ties into this:



If the point of view you are coming from were true, I don't see how God could have offered Lucifer pardon without Christ's dying.

That they were referring to his life and their own lives not just in relation to birth, but to their whole existence up to that point, is evidenced by their reply to him: "You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?" Of course the implied thought is that they were righteous until that moment, and he a sinner until that moment - and that's why he was unworthy to teach them.


Exactly that is the point. For the author, “righteous” does not mean “flawless,” but for some of the old rabbis, it did. The expression is ironic because the author doesn’t share their opinion, and he is criticizing the “hyperbolic praise,” the “examples of hyperbole extolling the virtues of biblical heroes,” the “extravagant praise for biblical heroes,” “the notion of the heroes’ flawlessness,” “the fawning approbation ... [of] biblical figures,” “their view of the blamelessness of the righteous.”


Both you and he completely overlook Paul’s argument that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law,” how? by “having become a curse for us” (Gal 3:13). So the curse is removed by faith in Christ’s substitutive sacrifice, and not by the believer’s obedience of faith. The believer’s obedience of faith is just a fruit, or result, of the faith in Christ’s substitutive sacrifice.


And you were responding to what *I* wrote, that “the legal dispositions of the plan of salvation exist to refute/avoid Satan’s accusations against God before the universe.”
Let’s try again.
God’s offer of pardon to Lucifer occurred before he defied God’s will, before he cast off his allegiance to God and His law, and, therefore, before he was in the same situation which Adam and Eve found themselves after they transgressed.
After man sinned, Satan said that God would not be just if He showed mercy to the sinner, because after his own rebellion he had been banished from heaven. So, if he couldn’t be forgiven, neither could man.
But, by dying in our behalf, Christ removed from God all charge of lessening the guilt of sin. Therefore, God (the Godhead) needed Christ’s death.


David did not kill Uriah directly, but God considered him guilty of Uriah’s death because that was his intention. The same is true about Jews and Romans; God considered them guilty of Christ’s death, but you know and I know that Christ didn’t die because of the cross. So, the fact that the Jews were considered guilty of Christ’s death has nothing whatsoever to do with our salvation. Our sins killed Christ – this has to do with our salvation.


The text is speaking of legal covenant regulations concerning capital offense. And obviously all Jews were aware that the capital punishment was a judicial punishment.


I don’t know what you mean. Ellen White describes Christ’s death as a judicial punishment. She didn’t need at all to have used this expression if that wasn't what she meant. She also says the Father assumed toward Christ the character of a judge, which confirms what she said in the other quote.

(Part 1)



Here's EGW's comment:



The Pharisees were suffering from this misconception. The (formerly) blind person said to them:



to which the Pharisees responded:



They were angry, and so retorted that he was born in sins, so who was he to question them. On what basis did they assert he was born in sins? Because he was blind. The fact that he was born blind, and they were not, pointed to their superiority over them.

There's absolutely no idea that the Pharisees were claiming to never having sinned, or were thinking in these terms. They were simply arguing that the fellow was born in sins because he was born blind, so who was he to presume to teach them.



But righteous didn't mean "flawless." It meant "observant, obedient, morally upright, just."



Did you read what Waggoner wrote? For your convenience, I'll repeat his argument. No, he did not overlook Paul's argument!!



Waggoner's argument is that Christ redeems us from the curse of the law by making us obedient to it! How can you assert Waggoner overlooked Paul's argument? You could assert that you disagree with Waggoner's treatment of it, but it's evident he did not "overlook" it!

I presented Waggoner's argument, and you responded:



This wasn't Waggoner's argument at all! You're not agreeing with Waggoner, but disagreeing with him.



Christ's becoming a curse for us is what enables faith to function:





Regarding this statement:



I agree! The faith is what removes the curse, because the faith is what results in the believer being obedient. It is not the obedience which removes the curse, but the faith, as you say.

(Part 2)



Lucifer's situation was much worse than Adam and Eve's.



Lucifer indulged a spirit of discontent, worked with mysterious secrecy, hid his true intent under the guise of reverence to God, claimed not to be aiming at self-exaltation when in reality that's exactly what he was doing. He made false claims before the loyal angels. Adam and Eve didn't do any of these things! Yet, in spite of all these things, God *still* offered Lucifer pardon. *Long* was he retained in heaven. "Again and again" he was offered pardon!

Why was he offered pardon? Because of sin, of course!



Who cares what Satan says? I'll comment on Satan's argument in more detail later, tomorrow.



If the Godhead needed Christ's death to forgive, then how did the Godhead offer Lucifer pardon?

If we look at Christ's life and teachings, we find no evidence that death was necessary for forgiveness to be given. For example, Christ forgave the paralytic. This was evidence of His divinity. There's not even a hint that death was necessary in order for him to do so.

Christ taught us to forgive as we have been forgive, that we had been freely forgiven. If we are only forgiven because a debt has been paid, then we are not freely forgiven. Similarly, we need not, should not forgive (if we are to follow how God supposedly forgives) without insisting on our debt being repaid (which isn't forgiveness at all).



*Both* have to do with our salvation. The actions of the Jews and the Romans are *our* actions. It is only by luck of circumstances that we were not there. The books of heaven record the sins we would have committed had we had the opportunity. Peter's sermon in Acts was recorded for our benefit; it wasn't something only for the Jews.



There whole concept of justice was different than that of a Westerner. We think of justice as retributive. They thought of it as restorative. (http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0499/049910.htm)



I mean she wrote that God's love was no longer constrained, and then explained her meaning in clear language in her very next sentence:



The constraint on God's love is removed when people accept Christ as their personal Savior. The cross was necessary in order for this to happen:

Blindness was not the only factor they were referring to. They considered themselves righteous and despised the common people, whether physically ill or not.

John 7:49 "But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed."

Luke 18:9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

You are not considering the essence of the pharisaic spirit. If a man considers that he is perfectly righteous at the present, what prevents him from thinking that he has been perfectly righteous during his whole life?

“The Pharisees felt that they had need of nothing to make them spiritually perfect. They were just in their own eyes, and felt no need of repentance” {ST, January 29, 1894 par. 2}


For some of the old rabbis, it meant flawless, blameless. This is amply demonstrated in the article.
In fact, I only mentioned the Pharisees and the early rabbis because you had said no Jew had ever considered righteousness as perfect obedience during one’s whole life. This is not at all the case.
Of course the view of the Pharisees and early rabbis was a distorted view, and in fact the Bible does refer to God's children as righteous, meaning “observant, obedient, morally upright,” but that’s because, for Christ’s sake, God attributes perfection to those who are imperfect.

“Works will never save us; it is the merit of Christ that will avail in our behalf. Through faith in Him, Christ will make all our imperfect efforts acceptable to God.” {TMK 229.2}

“The nearer the Christian lives to God, the more he advances in divine illumination of mind. He has more distinct sense of his own littleness, discerns his defects of character, and sees his duty in the light in which God presents it. The more closely he draws to Jesus, the more he has a near and clear sense of his own defects which had before escaped his notice, and he sees the necessity of humbling himself under the mighty hand of God. If lifted up it will not be because he lifts and exalts himself, but because the Lord exalts him. Having his eye fixed upon the purity and perfection of Christ Jesus, and acknowledging and obeying God in all his ways, he is not blinded to his own failures and imperfections. When his deportment in the eyes of men is unblamable and irreprovable, God reads the intents and purposes of the heart.” {TDG 16.2}


Didn’t he? Where is Gal. 3:13 mentioned in the whole passage you quoted?


This is exactly why he is overlooking Paul’s argument, for Paul’s argument is, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Gal 3:13), not by making us obedient to it!


I said I agreed that faith removes the curse. I disagreed with the explanation he gives. Did you notice I begin the other sentence with “But”?


Tom, two questions:
1) When did Lucifer fell from his allegiance to God/His law?
2) When did Adam and Eve fell from their allegiance to God/His law?


God does. If He didn’t care, He would have destroyed Satan and his angels at the beginning of the great controversy.


The answer is in the reply to the two questions I asked you above.


No, they aren’t. These are two different things. Jesus’ mother didn’t agree with His crucifixion, nor John, who was at the foot of the cross, nor the women who followed Jesus, nor Nicodemus, nor Joseph of Arimathea, nor many other people. They would never have crucified Christ.


Even if it was restorative, the fact remains that a capital punishment is a judicial punishment (the result of a judgment). However, a capital punishment could hardly be described as restorative. When Ellen White describes the punishment of the wicked, she refers to it as retributive justice.


You are confusing the quotes. We are speaking here of judicial punishment, not of the quote you mention.

None of this is addressing the issue we were discussing. What I said was that the Jews did not understand "righteous" as meaning "keeping the law perfectly one's whole life."

You presented their statement to the blind man as evidence that they had this in mind, so I presented evidence that this was not the case. Of course they trusted in themselves and were self-righteous, but this isn't the issue we were discussing. We were discussing what "righteous" would have meant to a 1st century Jew, or earlier. You have a view of "righteous" which is recent Western, not ancient Hebrew.



You are stating this is the case, but what's the evidence? I presented a whole host of definitions, and none of them suggested this. I haven't been able to find this definition or idea anywhere for ancient Judaism. If you can present some evidence of this, I'd be really interested in seeing it. I would like to see either a statement by a 1st century Jew, or earlier, stating that "righteous" means "keeping the law perfectly one's whole life" or by an authority of ancient Judaism explaining that they had this concept, because, to date, I haven't been able to encounter any evidence that they did.



This isn't an idea that a 1st century Jew would have had. You're just restating what you believe. I've been asking for evidence of what a Jew would have believed.



What I quoted was in reference to Gal. 3:10. Indeed, it says, "No one can read Gal.3:10 carefully and thoughtfully without seeing that the curse is transgression of the law." so it's clear he was commenting on Gal. 3:10. He wrote a whole book on Galatians. Quoting the whole thing would have been a bit much. Saying that he "overlooked" Paul's argument seems a bit silly. Here's some more of what he wrote:



The reason I was quoting from Waggoner was in response to what you claimed Paul's argument was, which is a common idea. You said Paul's argument was basically:
1.The law requires perfect obedience
2.We don't have that to offer
3.Therefore Christ obeyed in our place, and died for us, and His obedience is accepted in our place.

I counted by saying that this was not Paul's argument, but it was what Waggoner presented, which is that those who are of the works of the law are condemned by the law because they do not keep it, because it can only be kept by faith. Those who are of faith are not condemned by the law, because they keep it by faith.



Lucifer fell when he made his final decision no to accept God's offer of pardon. Adam and Eve fell when they ate of the forbidden fruit.

More later.

Regarding that God cares, in the terms you are speaking of here. However, I would prefer to use the following language:



If God didn't care, he would have left Satan to reap the full result of sin, which is death, the inevitable result of sin. God could not have allowed this to happen at first, because then it would have appeared to the watching angels that God was killing Satan, rather than allowing him to suffer the inevitable consequences of sin.

When I asked, "Who cares what Satan says?" I was pointing to the dangers of using Satan's words as a basis for one's theology. He lies. It is Satan, not God, that has the attitude of demanding that a debt be paid to the last penny. God has the attitude of freely forgiving. The two characters are contrasted here:



The king in this parable is manifesting the character of God, the servant is manifesting Satan's character.

Satan says God cannot pardon without death, but he knows this isn't true, because God freely offered he himself pardon. He seeks to twist the meaning of the sacrifice:







Rather than seeing the sacrifice of Christ as something God freely gives to us because of our great need, it is presented instead as something God Himself needs in order to be able to forgive us.



How was man deceived?



But God isn't severe and unforgiving. Satan knows this is false because God, even after Satan had misrepresented God's character for the purpose of gaining control of heavenly beings, *still* freely offered him pardon.

Christ came to reveal that truth about God. The whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God to set men right with Him. Christ did a marvelous job in so doing, so much that He could say, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father!" But so successful has Satan been with his deceptions that man naturally views God the Father very differently than Christ.

It is because it was Christ's purpose to reveal the Father, that I ask where Christ taught the idea that the Father cannot forgive us apart from Christ. This isn't the idea Christ presented! Over and over again we see Christ freely forgiving, freely healing, freely giving of Himself. This is the way God is. He gives of Himself freely, He forgives freely. The only conditions He sets are conditions that *we* need. If we confuse our requirements with His, our perception of His character is impacted. God becomes different than Christ.



Oh yes they are! There's a story that goes like this. A man was having a dream, seeing Christ about to be crucified, His hands being held down, and a man about to pound nails into His hands. The one dreaming cried out, "Stop! Stop!" Upon hearing this, the man about to hammer the nails turned around. The one dreaming saw himself!

The books of heaven record the sins we would have committed had we had the opportunity. But for the grace of God, we would have acted just as the Jews and Romans did. We are no better than they.

What the Romans and Jews did speak to the natural hatred of man against God. The Gospels record these actions for a reason. When Peter preached in Acts 2, that was for our benefit as well. It was just something for the Jews.

There is much to learn from Christ's death.



This (restorative) is how the Jews thought of it. The capital punishment was a restorative action, to bring the Covenant community back into a state of shalom.



Here is the quote I was referencing:



You presented this quote, especially this part "By my death a restraint is removed from his love. His grace can act with unbounded efficiency."

You presented other quotes too. I said I thought those other quotes tied into this one:



The YI quote ties both ideas together. I'm saying that the judicial language that Ellen White uses is equivalent to the non-judicial language. That is, they are presenting the same ideas, using different language. So when she says "By my death a restraint is removed from his love." her meaning is explained in the next sentences: "His grace can act with unbounded efficiency. For all who receive Christ as their personal Saviour, there is opened an ample channel, in which human and divine instrumentalities can co-operate to communicate to the world the tide of God's love."

The judicial idea you have in mind falls apart when applied to Lucifer's case. The framework I'm presenting works perfectly. Lucifer was rebelling, and God offered him pardon if he would repent. God did the same thing for man. Because man was deceived, it was necessary that Christ come and reveal the truth. That revelation involved His death. Christ's work made it possible for man to repent. This work wasn't necessary for Lucifer, so Christ didn't have to die in order for God to offer him pardon. If *God* had required Christ to die in order for Him to be able to extend offers of pardon, then God would have required the same thing to pardon Lucifer.

I know you understand the argument here, and you've tried to deal with it by suggesting that Lucifer's actions were not as bad as Adam's, but that seems to me to be extremely obviously false. It seems to me you are constrained to do so in order to hold to your theological position. I don't think any neutral person, say not an SDA, could read through Ellen White's descriptions of what Lucifer did and come to the conclusion you have. Again, I don't think the text allows for this at all, but you are constrained to interpret things as you have because that's the only way you can continue to hold to the position that God requires death in order to pardon.

However, our differences are deeper than that, I believe. I think they have to do with how we conceive of God's character, and the underlying issues of the controversy. You perceive things (from my point of view) in terms of authority, that God's authority has been challenged, and God must maintain that authority, but must do so in a way that will work. Also you perceive that there are issues involved which are because of the law.

I see the issues as related to God's character being misrepresented, and the truth about that needing to be made known. I see the sanctuary service, and the law issues, as just being another way to communicate this same truth.

Here's the history of the points I brought up:


So, yes, I believe the born again people described in the Bible, people who are abiding in Jesus, do not sin. Their obedience is perfect. Like Jesus, they grow in grace and mature in the fruits of the Spirit as they progress from childhood to manhood, from babes in Christ to seasoned saints. I also believe this growth and maturation, this progression will continue throughout eternity.

While abiding in Jesus, while walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man, while partaking of the divine nature - love to God and man grows every day. It becomes more and more perfect. The difference between stages of perfection has nothing to do with sin and everything to do with righteousness. In the same way Jesus began perfect and became perfect, so too, born again believers who are vitally connected to Christ begin perfect and become perfect. "Perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (2 Cor 7:1)

PS - Of course, this isn't to say they lose the ability or freedom to sin. They are always free to stop abiding in Jesus and resume sinning. But while abiding in Jesus they do not and cannot sin.

So you think that the self-righteous Pharisees thought that they were perfect at present but that their past had flaws? I don’t think this is realistic at all but, anyway, you have the right to believe it.
As to the early rabbis, I don’t think you have how to contradict what the article shows clearly, that is, that many of them thought that the biblical heroes had never sinned.
Besides, Paul, a first-century Jew, presents a simple argument, perfectly understandable both then and now: anyone who transgresses the law is under a curse. Obviously the curse must be borne in order to be removed. That’s why we had to be redeemed from the curse of the law, which Christ did by becoming a curse for us.
And last but not least, either what Ellen White says agrees with the Bible or it doesn’t, and if the latter is the case, then she can by no means be called a genuine prophet.


I probably didn’t express myself adequately. What I meant to say was that Waggoner failed to pay attention to what Paul is really saying. Waggoner’s argument is that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by making us obedient, something which Paul never said.


This is not the only problem involved. What you are saying is that the curse simply vanishes when one becomes obedient, that there is no problem in relation to past transgressions. This is not what the Bible says and this is not what Ellen White says.


Which means that Lucifer was in the same situation of Adam and Eve only after his final decision.


In the great controversy, God has to do everything in such a way as to demonstrate that none of Satan’s accusations are true. Satan had said that, since he himself hadn’t been pardoned after defying God’s will, if God pardoned Adam and Eve, He would demonstrate that 1) He had double standards, and 2) the violation of His law was not so grave a thing as it had been made to appear at the beginning. That’s why Ellen White says that, by dying in the sinner’s place, Christ removed from God all charge of lessening the guilt of sin.


God is not angry - God hates sin. And yes, God needed the atonement in order to forgive us, for the reasons explained above.


We simply differ here. To me there is a difference between the cross as a physical instrument of death and the cross in its spiritual significance. We crucified Christ by our sins. Those who, besides crucifying Him by their sins, also crucified Him physically, will even be raised at a special resurrection.


Sure, it was restorative to others, but not to the person who was being the object of punishment. In the same way, the destruction of the wicked will be restorative to the universe, but it will be retributive to them, who are incorrigible offenders.


Works perfectly? I beg to differ. When God offered pardon to Lucifer, he wasn’t subjected to death, he would have been restated to his position, and everything would have been just fine. In Adam and Eve’s case, however, even though they were offered pardon, they were subjected to death, were expelled from the garden, and the human race has had to struggle with suffering, disease, death and misery for 6,000 years. You may think this is perfectly fair. I don’t. This isn’t fair either here or in China, as we would say in Brazil. No matter what you say, such a God as your view presents is not at all a fair God. So, saying that the sin for which Lucifer was offered pardon was greater than the sin of Adam and Eve is something that will never make the least sense to me.

___________
I've edited this post to add the following passage I've just found:

"The young man answered without hesitation, 'All these things have I kept from my youth up; what lack I yet?' His conception of the law was external and superficial. Judged by a human standard, he had preserved an unblemished character. To a great degree his outward life had been free from guilt; he verily thought that his obedience had been without a flaw. Yet he had a secret fear that all was not right between his soul and God. This prompted the question, 'What lack I yet?'" {COL 391.4}

But what then do you make of passages such as these, for instance, which I quoted to Tom in my post #104174?

“Works will never save us; it is the merit of Christ that will avail in our behalf. Through faith in Him, Christ will make all our imperfect efforts acceptable to God.” {TMK 229.2}

“The nearer the Christian lives to God, the more he advances in divine illumination of mind. He has more distinct sense of his own littleness, discerns his defects of character, and sees his duty in the light in which God presents it. The more closely he draws to Jesus, the more he has a near and clear sense of his own defects which had before escaped his notice, and he sees the necessity of humbling himself under the mighty hand of God. If lifted up it will not be because he lifts and exalts himself, but because the Lord exalts him. Having his eye fixed upon the purity and perfection of Christ Jesus, and acknowledging and obeying God in all his ways, he is not blinded to his own failures and imperfections. When his deportment in the eyes of men is unblamable and irreprovable, God reads the intents and purposes of the heart.” {TDG 16.2}