The only hope of any man lies through Jesus Christ, who brought the robe of His righteousness to put upon the sinner who would lay off his filthy garments. . . . The pure and holy garments are not prepared to be put on by any one after he has entered the gate of the city. All who enter will have on the robe of Christ's righteousness. . . . There will be no covering up of sins and faults to hide the deformity of character; no robes will be half washed; but all will be pure and spotless. {SD 66.4}

Christ loves His church. He will give all needed help to those who call upon Him for strength for the development of Christlike character. But His love is not weakness. He will not serve with their sins or give them prosperity while they continue to follow a wrong course of action. Only by faithful repentance will their sins be forgiven; for God will not cover evil with the robe of His righteousness. He will honor faithful service. He will abundantly bless those who reveal to their fellowmen His justice, mercy, and love. Let those who are engaged in His service walk before Him in true humility, following faithfully in His footsteps, cherishing the holy principles which will live through the eternal ages. Let them in word and action show that they obey the laws which are obeyed in heaven. {SD 13.3}

Christ was treated as we deserve, that we might be treated as He deserves. He was condemned for our sins, in which He had no share, that we might be justified by His righteousness, in which we had no share. He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His. "With His stripes we are healed." (DA 25)

When we submit ourselves to Christ, the heart is united with His heart, the will is merged in His will, the mind becomes one with His mind, the thoughts are brought into captivity to Him; we live His life. This is what it means to be clothed with the garment of His righteousness. Then as the Lord looks upon us He sees, not the fig-leaf garment, not the nakedness and deformity of sin, but His own robe of righteousness, which is perfect obedience to the law of Jehovah.(COL 311)

But then there are these...



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

"Subsitution" is just a word, of course, and can be used in different contexts. It means "in the place of," but what is taking the place of what (or who taking the place of whom) isn't always going to be the same thing.

In the context of the atonement, I think the following captures the thought very well:



However, that Christ substitutes His righteousness for our self-righteousness and sin is certainly an important point. Here's one of my favorite quotes in regards to His righteousness viz a viz our fig-leaves:

i assumed the quote in my post referred to both the imparted righteousness of Christ as well as the imputed, based on her other writings.

both the imputed and imparted have to be our substitute, one covers while the other is inside. something like that anyway.

We believe that when the word righteousness is linked with faith by "by" or "of" in Scripture, the meaning is the experience of justification.

lol. The 1888 message emphasizes what you're talking about a great deal. Since there's some threads on the 1888 message that have been bumped, perhaps this will be discussed.

Christ has made a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of justice. What a price for Heaven to pay to ransom the transgressor of the law of Jehovah. Yet that holy law could not be maintained with any smaller price. In the place of the law being abolished to meet sinful man in his fallen condition, it has been maintained in all its sacred dignity. In His Son, God gave Himself to save from eternal ruin all who would believe in Him. {UL 378.4}

Sin is disloyalty to God, and [is] deserving of punishment. Fig leaves sewed together have been employed since the days of Adam, yet the nakedness of the soul of the sinner is not covered. All the arguments pieced together by all who have interested themselves in this flimsy robe will come to nought. Sin is the transgression of the law. Christ was manifest in our world to take away transgression and sin, and to substitute for the covering of fig leaves the pure robes of His righteousness. The law of God stands vindicated by the suffering and death of the only begotten Son of the infinite God. {UL 378.5}

The transgression of God's law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. And the nonexecution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the Avenger of justice, which is the habitation and the foundation of His throne. He cannot dispense with His law; He cannot do away with its smallest item in order to meet and pardon sin. The rectitude, justice, and moral excellence of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe and the worlds unfallen.--Manuscript 145, Dec. 30, 1897, "Notes of Work." {UL 378.6}

T:The 1888 message emphasizes what you're talking about a great deal. Since there's some threads on the 1888 message that have been bumped, perhaps this will be discussed.

C:What, Tom, of the red and blue bolded sentences in those EGW quotes?

But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 761, 762)

The life of Christ was not the price paid to the father for our pardon; but the life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely.

A propitiation is a sacrifice. The statement then is simply that Christ is set forth to be a sacrifice for the remission of our sins. "Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:26. Of course the idea of a propitiation or sacrifice is that there is wrath to be appeased. But take particular notice that it is we who require the sacrifice, and not God. He provides the sacrifice. The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible.(Waggoner on Romans)

It's not that God needed Christ's death, but human beings did, as their hope was "in a knowledge of God's love." As Fifield put it:



This looks to me to be in harmony with Ellen White's outlook, as does the following by Waggoner:

t:I'm not quite sure how you see this. what I mean is, do you believe that Christ needed to die so I could live?

Christ died my death? not to appease a "punishing" god, or anything like that.

just a matter-of-fact I'm going to die even if I do "turn around" and become "righteous" for the rest of my life.

I have my own understanding of how this works and am only asking because such opposition is expressed against your view, so thought I should clarify for myself what is being opposed.

(M)an was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 762)

"Subsitution" is just a word, of course, and can be used in different contexts. It means "in the place of," but what is taking the place of what (or who taking the place of whom) isn't always going to be the same thing.

Christ has made a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of justice. What a price for Heaven to pay to ransom the transgressor of the law of Jehovah. Yet that holy law could not be maintained with any smaller price. In the place of the law being abolished to meet sinful man in his fallen condition, it has been maintained in all its sacred dignity. In His Son, God gave Himself to save from eternal ruin all who would believe in Him. {UL 378.4}

Sin is disloyalty to God, and [is] deserving of punishment. Fig leaves sewed together have been employed since the days of Adam, yet the nakedness of the soul of the sinner is not covered. All the arguments pieced together by all who have interested themselves in this flimsy robe will come to nought. Sin is the transgression of the law. Christ was manifest in our world to take away transgression and sin, and to substitute for the covering of fig leaves the pure robes of His righteousness. The law of God stands vindicated by the suffering and death of the only begotten Son of the infinite God. {UL 378.5}

The transgression of God's law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. And the nonexecution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the Avenger of justice, which is the habitation and the foundation of His throne. He cannot dispense with His law; He cannot do away with its smallest item in order to meet and pardon sin. The rectitude, justice, and moral excellence of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe and the worlds unfallen.--Manuscript 145, Dec. 30, 1897, "Notes of Work." {UL 378.6}

Knowing you think God's doesn't need a sacrifice to meet the just demands of his law so as to save this sinful race - God merely needs to do a substitutionary demonstration of sin and agape to clarify his character, so we can realise the truth and believe God is love...: so, no legal necessities or conditions being met by our Saviour.

The life of Christ was not the price paid to the father for our pardon; but the life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely. (God is Love)

What, Tom, of the red and blue bolded sentences in these EGW quotes? That God is just and justifier of believers (Rom 3:26) is expressed in the blue text, isn't it, by the penalty of the law against the sinner being applied, in Christ - as the other quotes state, and the red text says the same thing, in the context of meeting the law's demands.

If the governor of a State should indiscriminately pardon all offenses against the law, it would absolutely abolish all restraint of law. The motive in his mind might be love, but the love would be so unwisely and imprudently manifested that it would lead to anarchy and misery. The same is true of the Governor of the universe. His love and his wisdom are one. His pardoning power must be so exercised in “wisdom and prudence” as to lead men to unity and joy, and not to anarchy and misery, else it is not love....

Sin is secession from the government of God. Satan seceded, and sought to exalt his throne above that of God. Sinners are those who have joined themselves to Satan’s forces in the secession. God, in infinite love, sens his own and only Son to put down the rebellion. He cannot pardon those who are still in rebellion, for this would but justify the rebellion and dishonor the law, and so perpetuate and multiply the misery. But through Jesus this rebellion is finally to be put down entirely. “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head.” O’er every hilltop of earth and heaven, where for a short time there has waved the black standard of the man of sin, there shall forever float the white pennon of the Prince of Peace.

Every one who lays down his arms and surrenders his opposing will to God has the promise of pardon. This pardon God can grant, and not dishonor his law. Yea, more, it is through this pardon that the mercy and love of God’s law and government are revealed, -- a love that only commanded the right way, not to be arbitrary and domineering, but that men might be happy, -- a love what when men repent of the wrong, and turn back their hearts toward the broken law, is ever willing to forgive the past and give power for future obedience. It is thus that God can be just, and still the justifier of those who believe on Jesus. It is thus that faith in Jesus exalts the law of God to the highest heavens, and established it forever.

The cross of Calvary, to the whole universe of intelligent beings, is the greatest demonstration that ever has been or ever can be given that God’s law is eternal and universal, and yet that his love is infinity; reaching down with tender, fatherly longing to life up the lowest transgressor. In fact, his love is his law, and the law is unchangeable because his love is from everlasting to everlasting. When men behold this, they are led to repent of past transgressions, and to pray for power for future obedience. It is thus that Christ is exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. It is thus that the atonement is made, and rebellious men are led back into unity with God and with one another. (God is Love)

Why do you think that these quotes do not spell out "penal substitution" for us by Christ, and why do you think EGW isn't, in these quotes, saying God had to have his Son to die so our sins could be taken away by the Messiah? These paragraphs are unambiguous of God needing a sacrifice for justice, only then licensed to forgive us, wouldn't you say?

But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 761, 762)

The life of Christ was not the price paid to the father for our pardon; but the life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely.

First of all, I didn't say "God doesn't need a sacrifice to meet the just demands of his law so as to save this sinful race." What I said was that God doesn't need a sacrifice in order to be able to pardon us. Do you see the difference?

Yes. Not because of anything imposed by God, but because of the reality of the situation.



Yes. Christ "suffered" the death that was yours; that is, he experienced it on the cross. Were it not for Christ, you would have inevitably suffered the second death. Because of Christ's death, that need not be the case. You can choose His life instead.

[qutoe]just a matter-of-fact I'm going to die even if I do "turn around" and become "righteous" for the rest of my life.

I have my own understanding of how this works and am only asking because such opposition is expressed against your view, so thought I should clarify for myself what is being opposed.

(M)an was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 762)

their happy estate could be retained only on condition of fidelity to the Creator's law. They could obey and live, or disobey and perish. God had made them the recipients of rich blessings; but should they disregard His will, He who spared not the angels that sinned, could not spare them; transgression would forfeit His gifts and bring upon them misery and ruin. {PP 53.1}

But should they once yield to temptation, their nature would become so depraved that in themselves they would have no power and no disposition to resist Satan. {PP 53.2}

i assumed the quote in my post referred to both the imparted righteousness of Christ as well as the imputed, based on her other writings.

both the imputed and imparted have to be our substitute, one covers while the other is inside. something like that anyway.

We believe that when the word righteousness is linked with faith by "by" or "of" in Scripture, the meaning is the experience of justification.

You mean, what if the Sanhedrin had accepted Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah so many thought he was?

Tricky, but the Lamb of God would have had to be sacrificially slain for reasons other than opposing Caesar's throne - which was the Roman basis for convicting him. Whether the Jews could have sacrificed their Messiah, under Roman rule, as intended by God is unclear to me. It being under "Jewish" law, it may have been allowed, by the Romans...

Knowing you think God's doesn't need a sacrifice to meet the just demands of his law so as to save this sinful race - God merely needs to do a substitutionary demonstration of sin and agape to clarify his character, so we can realise the truth and believe God is love...: so, no legal necessities or conditions being met by our Saviour.

Sin is disloyalty to God, and [is] deserving of punishment. Fig leaves sewed together have been employed since the days of Adam, yet the nakedness of the soul of the sinner is not covered. All the arguments pieced together by all who have interested themselves in this flimsy robe will come to nought. Sin is the transgression of the law. Christ was manifest in our world to take away transgression and sin, and to substitute for the covering of fig leaves the pure robes of His righteousness. The law of God stands vindicated by the suffering and death of the only begotten Son of the infinite God. {UL 378.5}

my question, since God is a God of justice, is how does that play out in heaven? lets say you work harder and longer than i do, does that mean you get more goodies in heaven than i will, or do you get to live longer? just how does the justice thing play out in heaven?

T:First of all, I didn't say "God doesn't need a sacrifice to meet the just demands of his law so as to save this sinful race." What I said was that God doesn't need a sacrifice in order to be able to pardon us. Do you see the difference?

Colin:Sorry, Tom: There is no difference.

Your reasoning between us and Lucifer is philosophising,

not legal reasoning,

so you don't see that your position on God's requirements to save us amount to absence of the rule of law. It's quite possible you just don't see the issue, with your purely logical approach.

It remains the case that EGW wrote, "Christ has made a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of justice."

She also wrote: "And the nonexecution of the penalty of that sin [that is, any sin] would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the Avenger of justice, which is the habitation and the foundation of His throne." Whatever you deduce from her comments about Lucifer, this legal requirement of punishing sins is indisputable, unless you don't understand just what it is she is saying about God.

The demands of justice is the execution of the penalty for the sin, just as Sister White herself said: that means Christ's substitutionary death involved the penalty for our sins as proactive judgement of God, the Avenging Judge, which is nothing undeserving or undue us - that is, the additional meaning of arbitrary. She taught penal substitution, as those Adventists who teach the Moral Influence Theory, concede - not looking at you for that necessarily.

Unless the one-year Christian learns faster than the 80-year Christian, which seems unreasonable to me, you will always be "ahead" of me in spiritual development. After 100 years in heaven, you will have had 180 of being with Jesus, and I only 101. In short, you will have more goodies.

t:I see a lot of "formulas" but I don't see anywhere where it is stressed that, and we are urged to, study Christ, rely on Christ, except from Ellen White and very few others.

Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. (DA 21)

I think the valid comparison is that the 1-year Christian is behind where he would have been, had he not wasted time. I don't think the 1-year Christian would care about this, though. The thing to care about are the souls lost because the 1-year Christian didn't respond to the Spirit of God earlier.

Those who "work harder and longer" on earth will have advantages in heaven.

You're just avoiding the issue of Lucifer. Simply turning a blind eye to it doesn't make it go away. If she thought in typical penal substitution terms, what she wrote about Lucifer simply doesn't make sense.

my question has to do with "justice" and "rewards". if the lost will burn according to their deeds then will the acceptors of grace get gradiated goodies, also? justice is justice, after all.

like, does one get a bigger, better mansion? more property?along those lines.

The issue of lucifer is no argument against Sister White supporting penal substitution, because she doesn't deal with penal substitution when dealing with Lucifer.

Establishing a legal precedent: judgements are precedents for a particular point of law only when the reasoning for that judgement was based on that point of law once it is actually argued in court. It's a rule of legal argument in court hearings that conclusions of the judge reached on grounds other than have been presented to the judge are not an authority for those, unargued grounds supporting that conclusion. Unless any lawyer argues a specific issue for the judge to decide the case on, whatever reasoning the judge does use to decide the case other than that specific, unargued issue means the judgement is not a precedent for the issue that wasn't argued.

I'm sure you followed the logic of that rule of legal procedure.

I bring up "precedents" because you're using Lucifer's case as a precedent, a principle, for God's operative justice in all cases: precedents, for anyone who doesn't know ;), are court decisions of higher courts which are binding on lower courts handling the same issue, and of course legal arguments in court generally use both statute and precedents in favour of the said case.

Therefore, Ellen White's emphasis on God's fairness with Lucifer, the issue she was arguing for on God's behalf in Lucifer's case, in heaven, is no argument against penal substitution - it being clearly presented in & for our case down here (when she speaks of man's salvation), since she didn't say anything to that point, in relation to the prelude to heaven's war.

You want evidence for your case, or against it? There's no evidence for your argument, so the matter ends there, I'm afraid, as in thrown out of court in your case against penal substitution.

Nope, we all just get to be with Jesus and our Father.

The parable of the day labourers in the vineyard, with staggered arrivals during the day, throughtout the day, teaches that each is equally qualified for heaven, justified by faith, by Jesus, of course. The parable implicitly states longevity of sanctification gives experience of faith and fellowship - its ups and downs, but length of one's life of faith renders no extra heavenly benefits....apart that is from the eternal life & incorruption everyone gets .

There is, otherwise, only the original Adventist teaching that the final generation of saints, who live to see Christ return, shall have developed Christlike characters with him beforehand to complement their daily justification by faith: Christ won't come before he's happy all his brethern and sisters are thus prepared for the glory of his appearing and eternal, righteous society beyond. That preparation completed is the wedding of the Lamb which is the close of probation. That perfected character cooperation of the saints, relatively & individually, with Christ, experienced by faith, is the only unusual (all before have fallen asleep in Jesus) experience in heaven or on earth that I know of for anyone, for however long or short a time one is reborn in the faith by justification.

The issue of lucifer is no argument against Sister White supporting penal substitution, because she doesn't deal with penal substitution when dealing with Lucifer.

so if theres no extra goodies for the best and longest worker, why is there more or less "imposed" suffering for the lost before their death?

C: The issue of lucifer is no argument against Sister White supporting penal substitution, because she doesn't deal with penal substitution when dealing with Lucifer.
T: That's the point! If penal substitution were correct, she'd have to. There's no difference in logic applied to Lucifer or men. The "just demands of the law" would apply equally.

Ah, OK. I wasn't following this discussion.
I think that, regarding the suffering of the wicked, the comparison is not with the reward of the just, but with the sufferings of Christ. This is what Ellen White says:

Those who might become co-laborers with Christ, and do good service in advancing the interests of his kingdom, but who use their talents and influence to tear down instead of to build up, are like noted rebels; their prominence, the value of the talent they use in the service of Satan, increases their guilt and makes their punishment sure. These will feel the wrath of God. They will experience what Christ suffered in saving men from the penalty of the broken law. The value of man and the measure of his accountability can be known only by the cross of Calvary. He who presents himself to the sinner as the One strong to deliver, will prove himself mighty to execute wrath and judgment upon every unrepenting son of Adam. ... Those who flatter themselves that God is too merciful to punish the sinner, have only to look to Calvary to make assurance doubly sure that vengeance will be visited upon every transgressor of his righteous law. The penalty for breaking the law of God is proportionate to the price paid to redeem its transgressors. What unutterable bliss is prepared for those who will be saved through Christ, and what depths of woe for those who despise and reject his great salvation! {ST, April 3, 1884 par. 5, 6}

There could be no penal substitution for Lucifer, because there was no way to save him.Man was put on probation - he fell - the cross of Christ provided a second probation to him.
Satan was put on probation - he fell - no second probation would avail for him.

Anyway, I was arguing on the basis of logic, not U. S. law. Logic dictates that if God offered Lucifer pardon, then He was capable of granting it.

There could be no penal substitution for Lucifer, because there was no way to save him.
Man was put on probation - he fell - the cross of Christ provided a second probation to him.
Satan was put on probation - he fell - no second probation would avail for him.

clarifying here. before or after he made his final choice?

and for all our info, the angels did have a tree to test their allegience. i would assume they passed that test, but at some point thoughts still occured to lucifer. others may make assumptions that make more sense to them.

There could be no penal substitution for Lucifer, because there was no way to save him.

God in His great mercy bore long with Lucifer. He was not immediately degraded from his exalted station when he first indulged the spirit of discontent, nor even when he began to present his false claims before the loyal angels. Long was he retained in heaven. Again and again he was offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission. (GC 496)

A tree?....possibly..., as only God is immortal. P&P ch.1 is good on Lucifer's path to inventing iniquity.

Colin, we just look at this differently. Here's how I look at:

1.Sin is destructive. It results in death. It's like poison. We need to be saved from it.
2.Because of sin's danger, God warns us from it.
3.Satan misrepresents God's character, presenting Him as doing that which sin does.
4.God gives us Christ, in order to save us from Sin.

God's role is ever that of Savior/Warner. So that right way of looking at it is, "If you sin, you will die," as opposed to, "If you sin, I will annihilate you in hell."

You look at the problem as a court problem, to be solved by legal maneuverings. What I see are sin-sick human beings, who need to be saved from sin.

When he tempted and overcame Adam and Eve, he thought that he had gained possession of this world; "because," said he, "they have chosen me as their ruler." He claimed that it was impossible that forgiveness should be granted to the sinner, and therefore the fallen race were his rightful subjects, and the world was his. But God gave His own dear Son--one equal with Himself--to bear the penalty of transgression, and thus He provided a way by which they might be restored to His favor, and brought back to their Eden home. Christ undertook to redeem man and to rescue the world from the grasp of Satan. The great controversy begun in heaven was to be decided in the very world, on the very same field, that Satan claimed as his. {PP 69.2}

Now the guilt of Satan stood forth without excuse. His lying charges against the divine character and government appeared in their true light. He had accused God of seeking merely the exaltation of himself in requiring submission and obedience from his creatures, and had declared that while the Creator exacted self-denial from all others, he himself practiced no self-denial, and made no sacrifice. Now it was seen that for the salvation of a fallen and sinful race, the Ruler of the universe had made the greatest sacrifice which God could make. It was seen, also, that while Lucifer had opened the door for the entrance of sin, by his desire for honor and supremacy, Christ had, in order to destroy sin, humbled himself, and become obedient unto death. {4SP 322.2}
God had manifested his abhorrence of the principles of rebellion. All Heaven saw his justice revealed, both in the condemnation of Satan and in the redemption of man. Lucifer had declared God's law to be of such a character that its penalty could not be remitted, and therefore every transgressor must be forever debarred from the Creator's favor. He had claimed that the sinful race were placed beyond redemption, and were therefore his rightful prey. But the death of Christ was an argument in man's behalf that could not be turned aside. He suffered the penalty of the law. God was just in permitting his wrath to fall upon Him who was equal with himself, and man was set free to accept the righteousness of Christ, and by a life of penitence and humiliation to triumph as the Son of God had triumphed over the power of Satan. {4SP 323.1}
God's law stands fully vindicated. He is just, and yet the justifier of all who believe in Jesus. Nothing less than this plan of atonement could convince the whole universe of God's justice. {4SP 323.2}

Nothing less than this plan of atonement could convince the whole universe of God's justice.{4SP 323.2}

Au contraire!



All he had to do was repent and submit and he would have been saved.

R: There could be no penal substitution for Lucifer, because there was no way to save him.
T: Au contraire!

If any of us believe that everything that Ellen White has said has authority to establish doctrine. Then quotes like that and many others will lead into confusion and can be contrary to Bible truth.

So, to me, this has no weight, and we need to seek what the Bible says. If no one can find these Bible texts that clearly says that there is no pardon for Rebellion; then this weekend I'll make it a duty to bring these here.

I believe Satan committed the sin against the Holy Spirit when he chose to engage in a pure Rebellion scheme. I'm sure there was a progression in his thinking before he resolved to a rebellious position. But was that sin? Having questions is that Sin?

During his quetioning time and realization of "self" time, I would see that God did everything possible in showing clearly His love and works, so that Lucifers questions and thinking wouldn't have any reason to conclude the accusations he aimed at God.

Despite of God's revelations and Truths, Lucifer chose to Rebel. The angels that ranked with him, commited the same sin which there's no forgiveness possible. I'm sure God would of had forgiven them and died for them, if there was possibility of return, but I believe there was none. However, we don't know much about this for the Bible does not expand much on this. So what the Bible doesn't reveal, we should not go into speculation.

SOP has helped establish doctrine after deadlock in Bible study, so it's not altogether true it played no part: SOP is a "continuing source of authority and truth": isn't that what it says in our beliefs?

This was before his fall, during his questioning time, before he saw things completely in their true light, before his final decision.

Very interesting! I'm sure I've read this, but somehow missed this part:



Is this implying that had man not sinned that the Plan of Atonement would still have had to have been enacted? Seems to be, doesn't it? Or perhaps the context is taking into account the sin of man, so this statement cannot be generalized to the case where man did not sin?

"During his questioning time" sounds like something he would say! His workings at this time were hardly innocuous. Here are the paragraphs immediately preceding what Rosangela wrote:

"Leaving his place in the immediate presence of the Father, Lucifer... (PP 37-38)"

We can see he was doing a lot more than simply "questioning"!

SOP has helped establish doctrine after deadlock in Bible study, so it's not altogether true it played no part: SOP is a "continuing source of authority and truth": isn't that what it says in our beliefs?

Hi Colin, I haven't read the whole context of the quote Tom brought here, however, this quote does say that Lucifer could of been pardon without the shedding of the blood of Christ. So that is quite a strong EGW quote that can negate the belief of "penal substitution".

But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love.

Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 761)

As for Christ's death itself: should God not need to execute sinners under penalty for sin, in order to pardon - despite SOP spelling it out very clearly that this is necessary, why, just to alert us fully to his love and that we can come back should we wish, put his own beloved Son through a CRUCIFIXION...??????

22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. (Acts 2:22-24)

Why would you think that God "put His own beloved Son through a crucifixion"? The Scriptures don't teach this.



Wicked beings crucified Christ, not God. God raised Him up.

God was crucified with Christ. He wasn't the crucifier but the crucifiee.

God did not "put" Christ through crucifixion, but permitted it to happen.

And when the devil comes and points to your sins and hateful crimes, tell him, "Yes, I am a sinner, but Christ is a Saviour, and He says, 'I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance'" [Matthew 9:13]. Thus you arm yourself with the whole armor of Christ's righteousness. How is it you have not on the armor of Christ's righteousness? What did He come to this world for? Why, if it had been a possible thing for us to have been brought back to keeping God's commandments, He never would have come to this world; but He came here because it was impossible for man to redeem himself and bring himself into a position where Adam stood before the fall. Then what was he to do? Christ came, our substitute and surety. {1SAT 108.1}
Before He came they were under a yoke; but Christ was above law, He was the originator of the law, so there was no yoke upon Him; and the angels were in obedience to Christ, who was not under the yoke. He could come as one equal with the Father, and He could open His breast to the whole woe, grief, sin, and misery, and by an offering of Himself He could bring life and immortality to light through the gospel. This is the only hope of life, and when Christ cried out, "It is finished," He carried out the devised plan. He had died in behalf of the race, as a freewill offering to God. He was not urged to do it, but He took it upon Himself that He might save the fallen race. He goes down into the grave and comes up out of the grave. {1SAT 108.2}
As Satan was triumphing in His death, it was not long before he found out he had overstepped the boundary. In seeking to cause the death and crucifixion of the Son of God, what did he do? He claimed in heaven, and he claims today among the Christian world, that in taking away the law of God they could establish one of their own that would be better. All the universe of heaven were looking to see what would come out of it. {1SAT 108.3}
Why did not God blot Satan out of existence? Why did He not blot sin out? Satan was permitted to develop his character, and unless he had had this opportunity, he would have laid the whole cause of his disaffection upon Christ and the Father. But he had an opportunity here in this world to develop his new principles, and he did it when he crucified the Lord of glory. He acted out his principles, and showed what they would lead to, and we see the same acted out in our world today--what these lawless principles will lead to. {1SAT 109.1}
The enemy has worked, and he is working still. He is come down in great power, and the Spirit of God is being withdrawn from the earth. God has withdrawn His hand. We have only to look at Johnstown [Pennsylvania]. He did not prevent the devil from wiping that whole city out of existence. And these very things will increase until the close of this earth's history, because he has come down in great power, and he works with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish. What is he doing? Going about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. And when he sees those who are resisting the light, and that God does not shelter them, he will exercise his cruel power upon them. This is what we may expect. {1SAT 109.2}
What is God going to do for His people--leave them with no new light? "Ye are," says He, "the light of the world." Then we are to get more light from the throne of God, and have an increase of light. Now, we do not tell you in the message that has been given to you here and in other places that it is a grand new light, but it is the old light brought up and placed in new settings. Jesus gave light, the most wonderful light, as He spoke from that cloudy pillar. And just prior to the time when the children of Israel left Egypt, one plague after another was brought upon the Egyptians, because Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites go to worship God. Finally, the God of heaven suffered the firstborn of both man and beast to be slain, and when Pharaoh looked upon their dying forms he began to understand who the great I AM was--that there was a power above, whom Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, could not compete with or overcome with all his experience and resistance. Therefore he said to the children of Israel, "Go." {1SAT 109.3}

teresa: the question, elle, is, is penal substitution biblical? have we been taught penal substitution and therefore read the bible in that light?

Elle, it's not a relevant quote because she doesn't exclude it, and she's only talking of God being fair to Lucifer, which is her context.

Teresa, Sister White could not be more explicit about the penalty of the law being applied for any transgression, however slight, so that God's holy & just law be vindicated. We are speculating on very dangerous ground with Lucifer, since the lesson on our own penal punishment of eternal death under the law of God is so clear: God's whole plan for restoring Lucifer is unknown to us, even from Sister White.

The fire of hell is only reserved already for Satan & co: that means, given that wicked humans are landing up there too, that Lucifer and his angels' options were the same as ours, but they turned it down. Lucifer broke God's law, claiming it "unfair" and God in response was only being "fair" to him: that's all we're told. Beyond that we are fishing.

As for Christ's death itself: should God not need to execute sinners under penalty for sin, in order to pardon - despite SOP spelling it out very clearly that this is necessary, why, just to alert us fully to his love and that we can come back should we wish, put his own beloved Son through a CRUCIFIXION...??????

That's mind numbingly cruel in my book: doesn't put God is a good light at all! Where's the wisdom of God finding an easier way to prove his love for us: wasn't Jesus' 3 year ministry sufficient, as Jesus himself said it was clear proof he was doing the works of God.?

Only should death justly be required of the sinner, as the applied penalty of God's government, is there any point in having a substitutionary death at all: dying for us under God's justice makes sense for Jesus, but dying for the sake of evil to be displayed - whatever God thought he was doing in all that! - saves no-one from death under God's regime...: death under judgement is hell fire, which Ellen White clearly also speaks to, in some detail too!

The substitute for suffering our penalty for sin - penal substitution - is Jesus.

Satan stood in amazement at his new condition. His happiness was gone. He looked upon the angels who, with him, were once so happy, but who had been expelled from Heaven with him. Before their fall, not a shade of discontent had marred their perfect bliss. Now all seemed changed. Countenances which had reflected the image of their Maker were gloomy and despairing. Strife, discord, and bitter recrimination, were among them. Previous to their rebellion these things had been unknown in Heaven. Satan now beholds the terrible results of his rebellion. He shuddered, and feared to face the future, and to contemplate the end of these things. {1SP 28.1}

It's clearly a relevant quote, and I'm glad Elle sees it. The argument is very powerful.

It's really a relevant quote. Not, however, to prove what you want it to prove.
Penal substitution occurred because man fell. Before falling, Eve obviously coveted the fruit, but, as I see it, if she had decided not to go ahead, she wouldn't have fallen, and the atonement wouldn't have been necessary. Anyway, the issue in question is fall - defiant disobedience, withdrawal from allegiance. Since the passage quoted speaks about the period before Lucifer fell, it doesn't apply at all to the issue of penal substitution.

Satan tempted the first Adam in Eden, and Adam reasoned with the enemy, thus giving him the advantage. Satan exercised his power of hypnotism over Adam and Eve, and this power he strove to exercise over Christ. But after the word of Scripture was quoted, Satan knew that he had no chance of triumphing.--Lt 159, 1903.(5BC 1081.) {2MCP 713.1}

Yes, God doesn't want anyone to suffer. Is he also just and holy and good? How does that justice and holiness work with sinners? Deception or directly rejecting God's truth don't influence the justice of holiness. "God is an avenging judge." He is also merciful, so we get both sides of him as he saves us!

EGW is crystal clear that the penalty of the law for sin must be applied for our salvation to occur - God needs to be just in order to save us from our death by his judgement.

Yes, natural consquences of sin...: does sin result on mortal death alone or naturally also in eternal death? In fact, does sin itself kill, or just extreme, sinful actions? We like to reason that "separation from God" leads to separation from life, but is that the actual future end for the wicked that the Bible tells of?? Is that the end of the matter as the SOP elaborates on the Bible???

Zec 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
Zec 3:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?
Fallen man is Satan's lawful captive. The mission of Jesus Christ was to rescue him from his power. Man is naturally inclined to follow Satan's suggestions, and he cannot of himself successfully resist so terrible a foe, unless Christ, the mighty Conqueror, dwells in him, guiding his desires, and giving him strength. ... {4bSG 100.1}

If he could in any way beguile them to disobedience, God would make some provision whereby they might be pardoned, and then himself and all the fallen angels would be in a fair way to share with them of God's mercy. If this should fail, they could unite with Adam and Eve, for when once they should transgress the law of God they would be subjects of God's wrath, like themselves. Their transgression would place them, also, in a state of rebellion, and they could unite with Adam and Eve, take possession of Eden, and hold it as their home. And if they could gain access to the tree of life in the midst of the garden, their strength would, they thought, be equal to that of the holy angels, and even God Himself could not expel them. {SR 27.3}
Satan held a consultation with his evil angels. They did not all readily unite to engage in this hazardous and terrible work. He told them that he would not entrust any one of them to accomplish this work, for he thought that he alone had wisdom sufficient to carry forward so important an enterprise. He wished them to consider the matter while he should leave them and seek retirement, to mature his plans. He sought to impress upon them that this was their last and only hope. If they failed here, all prospect of regaining and controlling heaven, or any part of God's creation, was hopeless. {SR 28.1}

t:It seems to make all the difference in the world as to how one looks at it.

C:EGW is crystal clear that the penalty of the law for sin must be applied for our salvation to occur - God needs to be just in order to save us from our death by his judgement.

We like to reason that "separation from God" leads to separation from life, but is that the actual future end for the wicked that the Bible tells of?? Is that the end of the matter as the SOP elaborates on the Bible???

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. (DA 764)

R:It's really a relevant quote. Not, however, to prove what you want it to prove.

R:Penal substitution occurred because man fell.

satan had defiant disobedience. adam and eve were deceived.

At any rate, the issue that I've been consistently arguing against is the idea that God needed Christ's sacrifice in order to be able to pardon sin. The SOP statement dealing with God's treatment of Lucifer shows this clearly isn't the case.

The difference with Satan was in the degree of light they had, but, like Satan, they disobeyed willfully:

To Adam and Eve were plainly stated the laws of Paradise, with the penalty for willful disobedience. They disobeyed, and disobedience brought its sure result. Death entered the world. {HP 153.2}

If God hadn't spoken to them, they would have an excuse, but God Himself spoke to them, yet they chose to disbelieve Him.

Eve really believed the words of Satan, but her belief did not save her from the penalty of sin. She disbelieved the words of God, and this was what led to her fall. In the judgment men will not be condemned because they conscientiously believed a lie, but because they did not believe the truth, because they neglected the opportunity of learning what is truth. {CC 15.7}

If God hadn't spoken to them, they would have an excuse, but God Himself spoke to them, yet they chose to disbelieve Him.

We've discussed this too much in the past, and it would be useless to discuss it any further,

but the need for an atonement arises in the case of willful sins.

Said the angel, "If light comes, and that light is set aside, or rejected, then comes condemnation and the frown of God; but before the light comes there is no sin, for there is no light for them to reject."(Spiritual Gifts Volume 4b (1864), page 3)

God must vindicate His law.

Pardon for willful sin (rebellion against God's law) without an atonement would plunge the universe into anarchy.

If the governor of a State should indiscriminately pardon all offenses against the law, it would absolutely abolish all restraint of law. The motive in his mind might be love, but the love would be so unwisely and imprudently manifested that it would lead to anarchy and misery. The same is true of the Governor of the universe. His love and his wisdom are one. His pardoning power must be so exercised in “wisdom and prudence” as to lead men to unity and joy, and not to anarchy and misery, else it is not love. (God if Love)

Therefore, God needs an atonement in order to forgive.

The life of Christ was not the price paid to the father for our pardon; but the life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely. (God is Love)

We've discussed this too much in the past, and it would be useless to discuss it any further, but the need for an atonement arises in the case of willful sins. God must vindicate His law. Pardon for willful sin (rebellion against God's law) without an atonement would plunge the universe into anarchy. Therefore, God needs an atonement in order to forgive.

Yes, and equally SOP is absolutely clear on the constitutional necessity of executing the penalty for transgression and any sin, too. That cannot be negated by anything implicit: it needs express revocation - this isn't the British constitution, but God's own. God needs an atoning sacrifice in order to forgive.

God needs an atoning sacrifice in order to forgive.

sorry, my brother, this doesnt/hasnt sounded like any bible/sop ive read. it is completely alien to what i have read from those. but it does sound like a courtroom which i have never equated with the bible/God/sanctuary.

The transgression of God's law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. And the nonexecution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the Avenger of justice, which is the habitation and the foundation of His throne. He cannot dispense with His law; He cannot do away with its smallest item in order to meet and pardon sin. The rectitude, justice, and moral excellence of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe and the worlds unfallen.--Manuscript 145, Dec. 30, 1897, "Notes of Work." {UL 378.6}

sorry, my brother, this doesnt/hasnt sounded like any bible/sop ive read. it is completely alien to what i have read from those. but it does sound like a courtroom which i have never equated with the bible/God/sanctuary.

teresa: the question, elle, is, is penal substitution biblical? have we been taught penal substitution and therefore read the bible in that light?

If God doesn't kill people who sin, that means there's something wrong with His law? I don't think so.

R: We've discussed this too much in the past, and it would be useless to discuss it any further,
T: They are parties here who weren't before that aren't aware of that discussion.

T:If God doesn't kill people who sin, that means there's something wrong with His law? I don't think so.

R:It's not that God kills people who sin, but that sin must be judged.

Sin is not something which affects just the person who commits it. Sin is something which transcends the person, affects the whole universe, and must be dealt with at a universal level. Therefore, it must be judged.

However, when sin is judged, this produces in the transgressor a weight of guilt which inevitably leads to death.

This is the penalty of the law, the legal requirement which Christ met.

Our sin was judged in Him, so that we don’t have to face its judgment and bear the weight of its guilt.

To be in harmony with His own character, God couldn’t abstain from judging sin, God couldn’t pardon without judging sin, so He judged it in Christ.

God Himself provided the means through which we could be pardoned and, at the same time, sin could be judged and condemned as it should be.

The life of Christ was not the price paid to the father for our pardon; but the life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely.

By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

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

Don't know what I said to this last time..., but both you two, courtesy of Tom, aren't looking also at the Bible and SOP on the judgement of God against sin with hell fire, and everything placing any human there. How Lucifer gets there is his own fault, and immaterial to our salvation, since Lucifer isn't a candidate for salvation, being the first in the queue for God's judgement of hell.

Is there a penalty for sin? Yes, we all agree on that.

Is it purely down to hanging on to sin, and not about God punishing all persistant rebels against his government? NO!! - but Tom says yes.

If the governor of a State should indiscriminately pardon all offenses against the law, it would absolutely abolish all restraint of law. The motive in his mind might be love, but the love would be so unwisely and imprudently manifested that it would lead to anarchy and misery. The same is true of the Governor of the universe. His love and his wisdom are one. His pardoning power must be so exercised in “wisdom and prudence” as to lead men to unity and joy, and not to anarchy and misery, else it is not love....Sin is secession from the government of God. Satan seceded, and sought to exalt his throne above that of God. Sinners are those who have joined themselves to Satan’s forces in the secession. God, in infinite love, sends his own and only Son to put down the rebellion. He cannot pardon those who are still in rebellion, for this would but justify the rebellion and dishonor the law, and so perpetuate and multiply the misery. But through Jesus this rebellion is finally to be put down entirely. (God is Love)

in his own words, doesn't he?!

Have you two remembered the end of Jn 3, where Jesus says disbelieving his gospel is a condemning choice? No-one is judged for continuing in sin!! It's rejecting God's gospel of his Son which brings judgement!

46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (John 12)

EGW says that unless the Father upheld his law on himself against us in Christ, his character would be impeached.

She's equally clear that those who reject that graceous salvation from his justice shall receive his justice in full measure, with real fire burning proportionate to their evil deeds till they are destroyed body and soul.

By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. (764)

The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.

In the time of John the Baptist, Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God. His very presence would make manifest to men their sin. Only as they were willing to be purged from sin could they enter into fellowship with Him. Only the pure in heart could abide in His presence. (108)

I haven't read the whole context of the quote Tom brought here, however, this quote does say that Lucifer could of been pardon without the shedding of the blood of Christ. So that is quite a strong EGW quote that can negate the belief of "penal substitution".

God's law stands fully vindicated. He is just, and yet the justifier of all who believe in Jesus. Nothing less than this plan of atonement could convince the whole universe of God's justice. {4SP 323.2}

Where does it say "the shedding of the blood of Christ" was not necessary? I haven't read that anywhere.

God's law stands fully vindicated. He is just, and yet the justifier of all who believe in Jesus. Nothing less than this plan of atonement could convince the whole universe of God's justice. {4SP 323.2}

The whole world needs to be instructed in the oracles of God, to understand the object of the atonement, the at-one-ment, with God. The object of this atonement was that the divine law and government might be maintained. The sinner is pardoned through repentance toward God and faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. There is forgiveness of sin, and yet the law of God stands immutable, eternal as His throne. There is no such thing as weakening or strengthening the law of Jehovah. As it has always been, so it is. It cannot be repealed or changed in one principle. It is eternal, immutable as God Himself.--Manuscript 163, 1897.

Lucifer was doing far more then "questioning", he was spreading dissatisfaction and doubts in a very underhanded manner. MANY were affected by his insinuations. Many were confused.

Could God simply reinstate him without an atonement?

All these offerings were to typify Christ and to rivet the great truth in their hearts that the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanseth from all sin, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Some wonder why God desired so many sacrifices and appointed the offering of so many bleeding victims in the Jewish economy. {1SM 106.4}
Every dying victim was a type of Christ, which lesson was impressed on mind and heart in the most solemn, sacred ceremony, and explained definitely by the priests. Sacrifices were explicitly planned by God Himself to teach this great and momentous truth, that through the blood of Christ alone there is forgiveness of sins. {1SM 107.1}

The atonement, or "at-one-ment," in Lucifer's case would have been his repentance and submission, just as God communicated.

God's law stands fully vindicated. He is just, and yet the justifier of all who believe in Jesus. Nothing less than this plan of atonement could convince the whole universe of God's justice. {4SP 323.2}

Don't know what I said to this last time..., but both you two, courtesy of Tom, aren't looking also at the Bible and SOP on the judgement of God against sin with hell fire, and everything placing any human there. How Lucifer gets there is his own fault, and immaterial to our salvation, since Lucifer isn't a candidate for salvation, being the first in the queue for God's judgement of hell.

sorry, my brother, this doesnt/hasnt sounded like any bible/sop ive read. it is completely alien to what i have read from those. but it does sound like a courtroom which i have never equated with the bible/God/sanctuary.

The transgression of God's law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. And the nonexecution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the Avenger of justice, which is the habitation and the foundation of His throne. He cannot dispense with His law; He cannot do away with its smallest item in order to meet and pardon sin. The rectitude, justice, and moral excellence of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe and the worlds unfallen.--Manuscript 145, Dec. 30, 1897, "Notes of Work." {UL 378.6}

The fig leaves represent the arguments used to cover disobedience. When the Lord calls the attention of men and women to the truth, the making of fig leaves into aprons will commence in order to hide the nakedness of the soul of every transgressor. {21MR 193.4}
The Lord Jesus Christ has prepared a covering, the robe of His own righteousness, that He will put on every repenting, believing soul who by faith will receive it. Said John, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Sin is the transgression of the law. Christ died to make it possible for every man to have his sins taken away. {21MR 193.5}
A fig-leaf apron will never cover our nakedness. Sin must be taken away, and the garment of Christ's righteousness must cover the transgressor of God's law. Then when the Lord looks upon the believing sinner, He sees, not the fig leaves covering him, but Christ's own robe of righteousness, which is perfect obedience to the law of Jehovah. Man has hidden his nakedness, not under a covering of fig leaves, but under the robe of Christ's righteousness. {21MR 193.6}
Christ has made a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of Justice. What a price for heaven to pay to ransom the transgressor of the law of Jehovah. Yet that holy law could not be maintained with any smaller price. In the place of the law being abolished to meet sinful man in his fallen condition, it has been maintained in all its sacred dignity. In His Son God gave Himself to save from eternal ruin all who would believe in Him. {21MR 194.1}
Sin is disloyalty to God, and deserving of punishment. Fig leaves sewed together have been employed since the days of Adam, yet the nakedness of the soul of the sinner is not covered. All the arguments pieced together by all who have interested themselves in this flimsy robe, will come to naught. Sin is the transgression of the law. Christ was manifest in our world to take away transgression and sin, and to substitute the pure robes of His righteousness for the covering of fig leaves. The law of God stands vindicated by the suffering and death of the only begotten Son of the infinite God. {21MR 194.2}
The transgression of God's law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. And the non-execution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the avenger of justice, which is the habitation and foundation of His throne. He cannot dispense with His law, He cannot do away with its smallest item in order to meet and pardon sin. The rectitude and justice and moral excellence of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe and the worlds unfallen. {21MR 194.3}
What is the justice of God? It is the holiness of God in relation to sin. Christ bore the sins of the world in man's behalf that the sinner might have another trial, with all the divine opportunities and advantages which God has provided in man's behalf. "Whosoever committeth sin," says John, "transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him" [1 John 3:4-6]. {21MR 194.4}
I would call on all who would win heaven, to take warning. Do not devote your precious probationary time to sewing together fig leaves to cover the nakedness which is the result of sin. As you look into the Lord's great moral looking glass, His holy law, His standard of character, do not for a moment suppose that it can cleanse you. There are no saving properties in the law. It cannot pardon the transgressor. The penalty must be exacted. The Lord does not save sinners by abolishing His law, the foundation of His government in heaven and in earth. The punishment has been endured by the sinner's substitute. {21MR 194.5}
Not that God is cruel and merciless, and Christ so merciful that He died on Calvary's cross to abolish a law so arbitrary that it needed to be extinguished, crucified between two thieves. The throne of God must not bear one stain of crime, one taint of sin. In the councils of heaven, before the world was created, the Father and the Son covenanted together that if man proved disloyal to God, Christ, one with the Father, would take the place of the transgressor, and suffer the penalty of justice that must fall upon him. {21MR 195.1}
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Christ did not come to change the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. He did not come to lessen the law of God in one particular. He came to express in His own person the love of God. He came to vindicate every precept of the holy law. {21MR 195.2}
Christ presented to His disciples their exalted position in the world. "Ye are the light of the world," He said, "a city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" [Matthew 5:14-16]. {21MR 195.3}
Christ read the hearts of the Pharisees, who were bracing themselves to resist the light. Their prejudice against Him was strengthening; they were saying in their hearts, He is doing away [with] the law; we will have no such teaching. But while they were bottling up their wrath, there fell on their startled ears the answer to their unspoken thought: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill (every specification of the law). For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle will in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" [Matthew 5:17-19]. {21MR 195.4}

No, I say no. Colin, I don't understand why in nearly every post I have to keep repeating the request for you to quote me as opposed to misrepresenting what I've said. I really don't understand this. Please stop doing this.

It should be clear from the fact that I keep quoting this that I believe that rebels must be dealt with. Where we differ is as to what the punishment consists of. Is it something arbitrary God does to them, or is it the result of choosing sin?

perhaps, my brother, you are not "searching the scriptures to see if that is so", but are bringing your "proof texts"? smile

i spent my spare time today collecting the statements containing "hold back" and "sweep away". one thing i started seeing was how we can "deny" Gods mercy with some of our beliefs.

the message that we should be giving the world isnt that God is going to "zap" them, get even with them, if they dont shape up.

the message we need to be giving the world, and very quickly in light of what has been happening, is that God is holding back the winds of disaster of every kind. He is preventing satan from having his way in this world through those who prefer satans character to Gods.

the context has to do with us trying to cover ourselves with fig leaves instead of accepting the righteousness, imputed/imparted of Christ. the context also has to do with the fact that God has, in no way, shape, or form, done away with the law but lived it perfectly. He offers it to us in exchange for our fig leaves.

sorry, my brother, this doesnt/hasnt sounded like any bible/sop ive read. it is completely alien to what i have read from those. but it does sound like a courtroom which i have never equated with the bible/God/sanctuary.

The transgression of God's law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. And the nonexecution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the Avenger of justice, which is the habitation and the foundation of His throne. He cannot dispense with His law; He cannot do away with its smallest item in order to meet and pardon sin. The rectitude, justice, and moral excellence of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe and the worlds unfallen.--Manuscript 145, Dec. 30, 1897, "Notes of Work." {UL 378.6}

The death of Christ removes every argument that Satan could bring against the precepts of Jehovah. Satan has declared that men could not enter the kingdom of heaven unless the law was abolished, and a way devised by which transgressors could be reinstated into the favor of God, and made heirs of heaven. He made the claim that the law must be changed, that the reins of government must be slackened in heaven, that sin must be tolerated, and sinners pitied and saved in their sins. But every such plea was cast aside when Christ died as a substitute for the sinner. --The Signs of the Times, May 21, 1912.

and this makes clear what ellen white was referring to in making the statement you presented.

in researching and studying i am seeing that we understand only very superficially what the real issues are.

C:Is it purely down to hanging on to sin, and not about God punishing all persistant rebels against his government? NO!! - but Tom says yes.

T:No, I say no. Colin, I don't understand why in nearly every post I have to keep repeating the request for you to quote me as opposed to misrepresenting what I've said. I really don't understand this. Please stop doing this.

C:Because, Tom, discussion is more than digging up quotes, let alone the time to find them, which you've spread throughout this forum. It frustrates you, but every single relevant statement of yours cannot actually be found. We're left with memory.

T:It should be clear from the fact that I keep quoting this that I believe that rebels must be dealt with. Where we differ is as to what the punishment consists of. Is it something arbitrary God does to them, or is it the result of choosing sin?

C:Well, there you've said it, again - so I needn't go searching everywhere for it in vain: the penalty for sin is the result of choosing sin; you just denied vociferously that it was the result of hanging on to sin.

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

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them.(DA 107)

By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them.

The divine judgement on sin by fire and punishment, ending relatively swiftly in eternal annihilation, is in the Bible and SOP - as quoted here already, this time too, so, as Rosangela has said of your past discussions here over how many years, that you don't believe that is your own fault.

When one writes that a certain passage "says that Lucifer could of been pardon without the shedding of the blood of Christ," and that passage does not say any such thing -- I think we should raise questions.

Where is a passage stating how a repentant, submissive Lucifer would be re-instated without the redemption price?

That repentance and submission was absolutely necessary for his re-instatement, is obviously true. But how would Lucifer's repentance and submission be an "atonement" to convince the whole universe of anything?

The questions, doubts, insinuations and confusion had been tossed out by Lucifer, and like feathers in the wind they could not just be regathered and all things continue as before.

The questioning would continue -- his lying charges against the divine character and government and that God was seeking merely the exaltation of himself in requiring submission and obedience from his creatures, --those doubts instilled in intelligent minds would raise the question -- "did God force Lucifer into submission?"

God in His great mercy bore long with Lucifer. He was not immediately degraded from his exalted station when he first indulged the spirit of discontent, nor even when he began to present his false claims before the loyal angels. Long was he retained in heaven. Again and again he was offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission. (GC 496)

Tom misunderstood your comment about his quote, didn't he?

Hi Colin, I haven't read the whole context of the quote Tom brought here, however, this quote does say that Lucifer could of been pardon without the shedding of the blood of Christ. So that is quite a strong EGW quote that can negate the belief of "penal substitution".