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.

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.

I see several problems with this assertion.

1.Jesus never hints at this idea.
2.It's not Scriptural in general. That is, there is no place in Scripture that says that God needs an atoning sacrifice to forgive.
3.The concept that sacrifice was needed to enable God to forgive is not a Jewish concept.
4.It's not a concept that existed in the time of Paul anywhere.
5.It's not an idea that the church fathers had, as evidenced by the fact that the idea didn't make it into the Eastern Orthodox church.
6.That the EO church doesn't have this idea is evidence while the RC church did points to its true origin.
7.Regarding the SOP, it doesn't agree with her description of the facts viz a viz Lucifer.
8.It portrays God in a negative light.
9.It obscures the real issue, and misidentifies the real problem.

Regarding 9, the problem is not a legal one that needs to be solved by legal maneuverings. Even without the law, you'd have the same problem, and the same solution. The law served simply to make known facts. It didn't change or alter what had happened or needed to happen to solve the problem.

What was the problem? The problem is that Lucifer wanted to exalt himself. In order to do so, he misrepresented God's character, vesting God with his own characteristics, meaning that he accused God of wanting glory for Himself, of being harsh and arbitrary, and not having the best interest of His creatures at heart, when these were actually characteristics which pertained to himself, not to God at all. This was the way that he deceived men and angels.

The solution to the problem is getting the truth out. But this is a very difficult thing to do. If someone accuses you of something, particularly if it involves your character, simply accusing the accuser isn't enough to resolve the issue; it's looks like you're a copy cat. You've got two people pointing their fingers at one another. They look the same.

In order for the difference to be seen, it was necessary for the fruit of the two different kingdoms, or paradigms, or governments, be seen. This takes time. The cross was the coup de grace of a process God had been working on for a long time. At this point, the battle was won. Not for reasons of legal maneuverings, but for reasons of light and truth.

Not forgetting Rosangela and I are both speaking of law enforcement, and penalty being applied for sins unrepented of, here's the SOP I was referring to. God's justice against the wicked is his avenging judgement for rejection of his gift of his Son to this world. Acceptance of his gift starts experience of his grace and mercy.

Courtroom? The constitution I mentioned or what brought that to mind for you?

When we deal with man-made laws and divine laws, there's a fundamental difference. Man-made laws are arbitrary, while divine laws are descriptive.

For example, if there's a parking spot that says "No Parking," nothing inherently bad happens if you park there. Arbitrarily, a fine has been set, and a traffic office might come by, spot your car, and give you a ticked.

Divine laws carry their penalty on the face of them. They don't need to be arbitrarily enforced, because they carry their own penalty. They are like the law against running a red light, in a way, as opposed to no parking. If you run a red light, that's inherently dangerous. The penalty this infraction may bring upon it is that you might get in a car accident. This would be an example of a non-arbitrary penalty.

If you break one of God's commandments, you invariably cause damage to yourself and others. Any infraction of God's laws are contrary to the principles of God's government, which alone are principles which promote life, health, and happiness. To break these laws is to bring death, suffering and misery upon yourself. Not because *God* does something to make you die, suffer or be miserable, but because such is the lot of the selfish.

Because sinners would instantly die if God did not do something artificial to prolong our existence, God has done so for Satan and his followers (including our fallen race) in order that the principles of His government may be seen in comparison with the principles of the enemy. If order to bring justice and avenge Himself, it is sufficient for God to reveal the truth to each one, and stop doing this artificial thing.

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..., in his own words, doesn't he?! What has Tom missed, while he only shows you a few select quotes for his alternative to our avenging God, Judge of this world? Has he misrepresented Ellen White's total teaching on God's mercy & justice?

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!

Did God judge the continuously wicked world of Noah only by turning away, and letting natural, sinful mayhem reign? Didn't God unleash & control, that is inflict, that judgement of flooding the earth in every single part of it happening? Isn't Rev 20 accurate enough in saying that the wicked are punished for their unconfessed and unforgiven sins, with fire and death from heaven? - or is it all figurative of the brightness of God's glory terrorising the wicked to death? What sort of judgement scene is that, with a great white throne? Real judge, real judgement of God, real, direct punishment: eternal annihilation - That's Sister White's description of it! - remember??

I have no doubt God clears up any and all confusion and doubt left among men as to what sin is, but he equally clears up what his holiness and justice and grace is: during the probation of grace God is lenient and merciful - and just, against our sin placed on our substitute, but in that day he is the living, avenging Judge of the universe.

EGW is unambiguous that the penalty of sin has to be executed by God on the sinner, in Christ, so that salvation from God's law's penalty can be just and not pardoning without God himself atoning for his people. God graceously for us executes the penalty for our sins on our sin bearer, his own dear Son: 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.

Does God not destroy sin, root and branch, body and soul, in all who have rejected his mercy and grace? Didn't Jesus himself - Tom's last line of defence when avoiding Revelation and teh Pauline epistles - warn all men to fear and respect God who can destroy body and soul, while sin by itself and its inventor, Satan, cannot?!

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.


I would recommend to them the thread The Atonement, where the subject was extensively discussed.

I think making known the truth is the judgment of sin.



Isn't the judgment making the truth known? The investigative judgment reveals the truth for the angels and unfallen worlds. The judgment during the 1,000 years does the same for saved human beings. And finally there's the judgment of the wicked, which reveals the truth to them.



Agreed! The wicked cannot bear the truth. The light of the glory of God (the revelation of His character) which gives life to the righteous will slay the wicked.



I don't understand why you would conceive of this as something legal or as a requirement. It just is. The judgment reveals the truth, which is something the wicked cannot bear. As you point out, it brings a crushing load of guilt, which they cannot bear.



Our sin was revealed in Him, so that we can understand it, and Satan, as well as ourselves, and Christ, and God. As we behold God's character and love, our hearts are drawn to Him. As we repent of our sin, it is removed from our lives. Not having known sin means God can reveal Himself to us without destroying us.



But this isn't the problem. The problem is that sin is destroying us, and causes us to view Him in ways He is not. We need to be saved from sin and reconciled to God. Giving us Christ was the only way to accomplish this.

It seems your thinking is God reasons like this: "I'd really like to forgive Rosangela, but I can't because I must judge sin. What will I do? Oh, I know! I'll put her sin on Christ and judge it there. Then I'll be free to do what I want." Is this right?



I agree with this 100%, but this means something very different to me than to you. Certainly everyone would agree with the first part, "God Himself provided the means through which we could be pardoned," but our difference is I see this as follows:



Regarding the following part, that this allows sin to be judged and condemned as it should be, I agree with this as well, the principle being explained by Christ in the parable of the wheat and the tares, as well as DA 764.



To judge and condemn sin, it must be seen for what it is.



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.

How Lucifer gets there is not immaterial to our salvation. Understanding the principles of sin, judgment and righteousness is material.



Good to here you say this.



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.

I've quoted the following many times:



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?



No!



This is precisely what I've been saying. The gospel is the way of salvation. If it's rejecting, only death can follow. Since the Gospel is the only way of being saved from sin, of course rejecting it must be a condemning choice.

Jesus explains how this works:



The judgment comes as a rejection of truth. God sends us truth, which would save us, but if reject it, we must be lost.



I agree with this, and believe Fifield's quote above deals with the how and why of this.



She's very clear that they are not destroyed by literal fire. DA 764 and DA 108 make this very clear.



Sin is lethal. It is not innocuous. It's not that we would be fine in transgression if only God would leave us alone.