We'll have to get GC to weigh in on this. Regarding the atonement, it appears to me that he's saying the same thing I've been saying for years.

You mentioned Lucifer's case. We can bring that up to him as well. I have mentioned many times that God offered to pardon Lucifer without Christ's having to die in order for Him to do so. GC pointed out that Christ's sacrifice for Lucifer would have done no good because he already knew God's love and character, the same point I've made many times. My guess is he would agree with my point that God offered to pardon Lucifer of his sin many times, and that it was not necessary for Christ to die in order to do so.



GC looks to have referred to this passage, and another one I've often quoted:



GC has also brought out several times the importance of understanding the atonement not simply in terms of the relation to man, but to the universe as a whole, another point I've made many times.

So it appears to me that GC's understanding of the atonement is very similar to mine. Actually, up to now, I haven't perceived a difference.

Tom and Mike,

Coming from a third perspective, as I am, I am not sure exactly where the two of you differ. I've seen points bantered back and forth, largely in the forms of questions like "Do you agree with this?" However, I'm not sure of exactly which points you find in conflict.

From my present position, it appears that just as there are two sides of a coin, each of you may be seeing one side, whereas I see both. In other words, I'm not sure I differ with either of you. I do not see myself, presently, as siding more heavily with one or the other of you. If you clarify some point on which you differ, then perhaps I can see where I stand on that particular point.

It appears to me that Tom's special focus has been God's love. Mike has focused on God's law. But I see them as one and the same. As we say, there is a hard side of love. I see that. God has His own hard side. His mercy is not forever.

"He will not always strive with us, neither will he keep his anger forever." (David's words, Psalm 37?)

Mike also seems more focused on this earth and the human family. I view the Great Controversy within the perspective of the entire Universe. Thus, God's sacrifice is not just for us, but for all those watching us as well.

God is on trial. His law and justice stand accused of being unfair. Satan claims it is not possible to keep God's law fully. But God will have a people, just before He comes, who do just that. This will be the final proof to end the conflict with Satan.

Jesus has made the proof of His love on the cross. At the same time, He established the unchanging character of His law. But it is only when He demonstrates to the watching Universe that His power is sufficient to enable us to keep His law fully, and live perfect before Him, that the final blow to the devil's assertions will come. At that point, all will know without a doubt that God was right, and Satan was wrong.

Therefore, we have the privilege of being among those who help to vindicate God, His law, and His character. This is what makes the 144,000 so special to God.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I agree with seeing God's law as His love.

Perhaps this will help spell out our difference. From MM's perspective, if Christ had not died, God would not have been able to legally pardon man (due to a limitation on God's side). That is, God did not have the legal right to pardon man unless Christ died. I've argued against this on both the basis of Scripture and the SOP. Most of MM and my discussions have centered around SOP quotes, and this is what MM usually cites.

What I've argued, in relation to the SOP, is that the reason Christ had to die could not be what MM has asserted, because this same reason would apply to Satan. That is, if it were necessary for Christ to die in order to satisfy some legal requirement that would confer upon God the ability to pardon, then it would have been necessary for Christ to die in order to pardon Satan. Yet we are told that God offered pardon Satan again and again, without Christ's having to die, so this shoots that whole theory down. There must be some *other* reason that Christ's death was necessary, which are the reasons you've been pointing out.

For example,



The reason Christ didn't die for Satan is because it wouldn't have done any good. But for man, it could to good. Why? Because of some legal requirement? No, but because man's mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry, not knowing the height and depth of God's love; by beholding God's character man could be drawn back to God. This wasn't possible for Satan, so there was no sacrifice for him.

But if there were some independent legal requirement (by independent I mean without reference to issues like responding to God's love, knowing God's character, being drawn back to God, things like that) then it *would* have been necessary for Christ to have died for God to have pardoned Satan. Yet God offered Satan pardon anyway, without Christ's death. Why? Because Satan already knew God's love and character. All that was necessary for Satan was to make a decision as to what he wanted to do. Man was not in the same position as Satan, because his mind had been darkened to Satan's sophistry. God had to do something to even get man to the point to where it was possible for him to make the same decision God offered Satan.

This whole process is approved by the law and satisfies the justice of God. I agree with statements emphasizing that Christ's death was necessary to satisfy justice and legal requirements, but not independent of the issues which DA 761-762 bring up.

I wanted to make a comment on the following:



My focus has been more on God's character. Now "God is love," so the defining attribute of His character is His love, so there's definitely a close connection. However, the law is a transcript of His character, and love is the fulfilling of the law, so it's easy to see that an emphasis on God's character must, of necessity, also emphasize both His love and His law.

Hi, I havent read all of this but didnt Jesus also "earn the right" to pardon and save sinners, not only by His death but by His LIFE as well?

Someone might of already said this but just in case they havent...

Romans 8:
3: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

He had to live a life completely free from sin in order to be able to condemn sin in the flesh... so we'd have no excuse for sin.

Maybe later I will be able to join in convsersations when a topic first starts so I wont annoy anybody by not knowing whats going on LOL!

and I know this will probably seem strange but as I was looking at something Elle said in a SOP quotation it made me think of this:

"The coin, though lying among dust and rubbish, is a piece of silver still. Its owner seeks it because it is of value. So every soul, however degraded by sin, is in God's sight accounted precious. As the coin bears the image and superscription of the reigning power, so man at his creation bore the image and superscription of God; and though now marred and dim through the influence of sin, the traces of this inscription remain upon every soul. God desires to recover that soul and to retrace upon it His own image in righteousness and holiness." COL 194

Since we at creation bore the image of the "reigning power" of God, it has to be that same image of the reigning power restored in us and it has to be the reigning power Himself who does everything to redeem and restore us, doesnt it?

Ive been watching videos on the Sabbath and reading Hebrews chapter 4 and realizing that Jesus as our Creator has everything to do with our salvation, because He is our Creator. He had to die for us because He is our Creator and He had to live out the perfect life for us because He is our Creator and He has to re-create His image in us because He is our Creator. He is the only One who couldve done all this.

I dont even know how to put into the right words what Im trying to say here but I just have an idea that this has something to do with it all, maybe.

Also I was thinking that in order to be both "Just and the Justifier" Jesus our Creator had to do ALL THESE THINGS in OUR place for us... die for us, because we incurred God's wrath for our sins, so He must pay the penalty of the Second Death to satisfy God's Justice... and LIVE for us, in the place of us, the perfect life as if we did it... He does THAT in our place as well, in order to satisfy the Justice of God... so Jesus can be "Just and the Justifier" of us...

BUT then if we fail to MAKE IT SO by actually dying OURSELVES with Christ, like it says in the chapter 6 of Romans, being buried WITH Him, the entire thing becomes "Null and Void" because it says in Romans 6 that only they who die WITH CHRIST will LIVE with Him at the Resurrection.

So see how Jesus had to do ALL these things to "earn the right" for us?

He as our Creator, who bears the same superscription of that "reigning power" which we should bear, and man DID bear at creation, which is what he was created to be in the first place, Jesus had to do ALL THE THINGS we are to do, pay the penalty of the Second Death, LIVE the life free from sin...

I hope this makes sense.

This is exactly what I believe, too!!!

GC, I totally agree with everything Tom says about the moral influence Jesus' death has on sinners. Our discussions do not dispute this aspect of Jesus' death. The sacrificial love and character of God demonstrated on the cross influences and inspires sinners to love and obey God. No question about it.

Tom and I disagree regarding the legal requirements of law and justice as it pertains to why Jesus had to die. I believe law and justice demand death for sin. I also believe pardon does not annul this requirement. Jesus had to die because death must happen in consequence of sin.

God cannot disregard the just and loving demands of law and justice. He has bound Himself by His word and by His law to uphold law and justice. The security of the Universe depends on it. Just because sinners cease to sin and learn to love and obey God, it does not give Him the right to set aside the death penalty.

Tom, you cannot cite Lucifer's case as proof God has the right to pardon sinners without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. You do not have enough evidence to establish this idea. There is no evidence that God would have reinstated Lucifer after he sinned on condition of repentance and submission without also requiring the the substitutionary death of Jesus. If what you believe is true, namely, Jesus did not die because law and justice demand death for sin, you should be able to prove it without relying on inconclusive ideas regarding Lucifer's case.

This is all the evidence that's needed:





This establishes the point that God offered Lucifer pardon without Jesus Christ's having had to die to do so.



Sure there is. See the above quotes!



I don't disagree with this. I disagree with your assertion that God was not able to forgive sin without Jesus' death giving him the legal right to do so.



Ok. Let's discuss the case from Scripture. We'll start with the words of Jesus Himself. Show me where Jesus said that God was not legally permitted to forgive sins, and only the death of Jesus allowed Him to do so.