TE: Christ did not die because God killed Him. Ellen White takes great pains to make sure this is understood.

MM: It has been pointed elsewhere that the scapegoat is the one who dies the second death in the lake of fire – not the Lord’s goat. That’s why Jesus didn’t die in a lake of fire.

The scapegoat was led into the wilderness. It didn’t die at all. I don’t know what point your wanting to make. You’re responding to a single sentence of mine, with no context, which is a bit scary.

TE: Is it not clear to you that if Christ were, even for a moment, to stop bearing our guilt that it would crush us?

MM: Yes, that’s my point. The long lingering death we suffer is not the real result of sinning because the real result is instant death – the second death. The reason we suffer and die gradually is because of the plan of salvation. I’m not blaming God for the way things are. But the way things are is not the real result of sinning. Again, the real result of sinning is instant death.

Given that the real result of sinning is death, there’s no reason for God to kill us, is there? All along I’ve been saying that sin is the result of death. I’m glad you’re agreeing.

TE: However, at the judgment, the wicked will become aware of their guilt, and it will crush them. To suggest that they die because of God's allowing them to bear their guilt seems to me to be a very strange way of looking at it.

MM: Strange indeed. The truth is that the cause of suffering and death in the lake of fire are attributed to several things – 1) enduring their guilt without a mediator, 2) realizing that they have lost out on eternity in heaven, 3) realizing they were duped and deceived, and last, but not least, 4) slowly burning up according their sinfulness in a seething lake of fire.

It’s beyond my comprehension how anyone who knows God at all would think that He would slowly torture people in a seething lake of fire. Jesus told us that when we see Him, we’ve seen the Father. I don’t see Jesus slowly torturing anyone. Do you?

TE: Do you see what this is saying, Mike? That there is hope for man in a knowledge of God's love? By beholding God's character, man can be reconciled to God? This is the Gospel. Christ's life and death makes it possible for man to behold God and live.

MM: Yes, I see it. I have said as much on several occasions.

I’ve missed this.

TE: I think Ty does an excellent job laying out the issues and problems associated with the three party view.

MM: The problem is I disagree with Ty’s view of the third party victim.

Why?

He pretends to understand why the life and death of Jesus satisfies the just demands of God and His broken law, why His life and death makes pardon and salvation possible.

That’s an odd way of putting it. He’s not pretending to understand anything. He’s writing out things he really does understand, which is how he is able to write about them.

Ty does not address the questions I’m asking:

I can see how an unbeliever might question the ethics and legitimacy of it. I can see how they might think if anything is arbitrary about the plan of salvation it is God allowing Jesus to pay my sin debt.

So I'm asking you - Why isn't it arbitrary? What makes it right and fair? How can God promise eternal death upon disobedience and then turn around and amend it by allowing Jesus to pay my sin debt? How is that not a contradiction, a compromise?

These are very good questions, MM. Very good indeed. Before trying to answer them myself, I should point out that Ty does address your questions. The very quotes I provided address these questions. Also the book I took the quotes from, as well as his other books (in particular “See God with New Eyes”) address your questions.

If Christ’s death were to solve a legal problem, then indeed it would be arbitrary, as you are suggesting in your questions. As Ty Gibson points out, if the wrath of God can be appeased by the suffering of a third party, then there is no organic relationship between sin and death, and God’s wrath is arbitrary. However, if the problem is not one of legality, but of an alienated heart and mind, then by a revelation of truth, man can be reconciled to God.

The promise of God of death is not a promise that God would cause something to happen if they disobeyed, but simply a statement of what would happen if they did. The problem is that sin results in death. If God can heal the sinner from the ravages of sin, then the reason for the sinner’s death disappears. He no longer lives according to the principle of selfishness, which is what results in his death, but lives in accordance with the principles of God’s government, which are principles of love, principles of life. Being reconciled to God, the believer has peace with God, and is reconciled to God’s holy law. God is just and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus.

The reason what God has done in saving man is not arbitrary is that God at no point has imposed His will upon the believer, nor has He intervened with an action which is unrelated to a cause, or, to put it another way, He has not introduced an unrelated cause to the question. I hope that’s clear. It’s not that easy to phrase. I can elaborate if desired.

TE: The scapegoat was led into the wilderness. It didn’t die at all. I don’t know what point your wanting to make.

MM: The scapegoat symbolizes Satan bearing our sin and second death during the millennium. God punishes and kills the Devil with our sin and second death in the lake of fire, which is precisely why Jesus didn’t die in a lake of fire. The punishment and death Jesus experienced on the cross did not accomplish the same thing as Satan’s death will accomplish in the lake of fire.

TE: Given that the real result of sinning is death, there’s no reason for God to kill us, is there? All along I’ve been saying that sin is the result of death. I’m glad you’re agreeing.

MM: Not!

TE: It’s beyond my comprehension how anyone who knows God at all would think that He would slowly torture people in a seething lake of fire. Jesus told us that when we see Him, we’ve seen the Father. I don’t see Jesus slowly torturing anyone. Do you?

MM: Torture? Not at all. It’s punishment. God will punish the wicked according to their sinfulness. It’s not torture.

Psalms
28:4 Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert.
28:5 Because they regard not the works of the LORD, nor the operation of his hands, he shall destroy them, and not build them up.

Romans
2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

2 Corinthians
5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.
5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

TE: If Christ’s death were to solve a legal problem, then indeed it would be arbitrary, as you are suggesting in your questions.

MM: Tom, I agree that the love of God as demonstrated in the life and death of Jesus motivates us to trust Him to empower us to repent and to save us eternally in Heaven and the New Earth. Please hear me.

However, my question is addressing another issue, a question which I’m beginning to realize you are ill equipped to answer because of your doctrinal bias. You believe sin is like a natural law that kills naturally like gravity causing people who jump off cliffs to die. I disagree.

I do not believe God is supernaturally suspending the natural cause and effect relationship between sinning and dying instantly. I believe God’s promise - “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shat surely die” – was referring to an execution not sudden death syndrome.

Jude
1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

CON 19, 20
The wrath of God still hung over Adam, but the execution of the sentence of death was delayed, and the indignation of God was restrained, because Christ had entered upon the work of becoming man's Redeemer. Christ was to take the wrath of God, which in justice should fall upon man… {Con 19.4}

God forbears, for a time, the full execution of the sentence of death pronounced upon man… {Con 20.1}

EW 52
Said the angel, "It is the wrath of God and the Lamb that causes the destruction or death of the wicked… {EW 52.1}

PP 409
Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}

FLB 338
After God has done all that could be done to save men, if they still show by their lives that they slight offered mercy, death will be their portion; and it will be a dreadful death, for they will have to feel the agony that Christ felt upon the cross. They will then realize what they have lost--eternal life and the immortal inheritance. {FLB 338.6}

GC 539, 540
God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law. Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary. The death of the spotless Son of God testifies that "the wages of sin is death," that every violation of God's law must receive its just retribution. Christ the sinless became sin for man. He bore the guilt of transgression, and the hiding of His Father's face, until His heart was broken and His life crushed out. All this sacrifice was made that sinners might be redeemed. In no other way could man be freed from the penalty of sin. And every soul that refuses to become a partaker of the atonement provided at such a cost must bear in his own person the guilt and punishment of transgression. {GC 539.3}

GC 672
God's judgments will be visited upon those who are seeking to oppress and destroy His people. His long forbearance with the wicked emboldens men in transgression, but their punishment is nonetheless certain and terrible because it is long delayed. "The Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act." Isaiah 28:21. To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Ezekiel 33:11. The Lord is "merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, . . . forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Exodus 34:6, 7; Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. The severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor may be judged by the Lord's reluctance to execute justice. The nation with which He bears long, and which He will not smite until it has filled up the measure of its iniquity in God's account, will finally drink the cup of wrath unmixed with mercy. {GC 627.2}

1.Satan didn't bear our sin. Christ bore our sin.

2.To say that Satan doesn't accomplish the same thing Jesus did by dying is rather odd. Jesus did indeed accomplish something by dying. He decided the Great Controversy by His act, ensuring the eradication of sin by making clear the principles of God's government and manfiesting God's character. You can't really say that Satan's death accomplishes anything, in the same sense that Jesus' did.

3.Old TE: Given that the real result of sinning is death, there’s no reason for God to kill us, is there? All along I’ve been saying that sin is the result of death. I’m glad you’re agreeing.

MM: Not!

TE:Excuse me? You wrote: "Yes, that’s my point. The long lingering death we suffer is not the real result of sinning because the real result is instant death – the second death." This is indeed agreeing exactly with my point that the result of sinning is death. You coulnd't have stated it any more clearly. The "real result" of sinning is "death, the second death." This is just what you wrote.

4."Torture" means "the infliction of intense pain, to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure." Leaving off the last two we have, "the infliction of intense pain, to punish" (from Webster's), which precisely describes what you have been stating.

5.Let's look at one the SOP quotes you mentioned:

After God has done all that could be done to save men, if they still show by their lives that they slight offered mercy, death will be their portion; and it will be a dreadful death, for they will have to feel the agony that Christ felt upon the cross.

He we see that the death of the wicked is like Christ's, because they will feel the agony that Christ felt on the cross. What is it that caused Christ to feel this agony?

He feared that sin was so offensive to God that Their separation was to be eternal. Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race. It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon Him as man's substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God. (DA 753)

There's no indication that God executed His Son, which is what your theology would suggest He must do, correct? If the method of death for the wicked is death by execution, and Christ's death is exchanged for the death of the repentent wicked, then if the wicked are to be executed, Christ must have been executed. That follows, doesn't it?

6.It looks to me like you are contradicting yourself. From a previous post we have:

TE: Is it not clear to you that if Christ were, even for a moment, to stop bearing our guilt that it would crush us?

MM: Yes, that’s my point. The long lingering death we suffer is not the real result of sinning because the real result is instant death – the second death.

Now on this most previous post you say you *don't* believe what you just said you did! "I do not believe God is supernaturally suspending the natural cause and effect relationship between sinning and dying instantly."

If the guilt of sin would crush us if Christ weren't bearing it, then we *would* die instantly, if it weren't for Christ, as you agreed with me above. "Yes, that's my point..." OTOH here you are stating that God is NOT suspending this natural cause and effect relationship, and that we *wouldn't* die instantly.

So which is it?

7.You wrote this: "You believe sin is like a natural law that kills naturally like gravity causing people who jump off cliffs to die." This is a naive view. What I've presented in the following:

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)

I believe this! The wicked die because they reap that which they have sown. The separate themselves from God, the fountain of life. 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.

This is what I've been presenting.

Tom, I scanned this thread and I didn't see any direct quotes from Gibson so I went to another thread where you quoted him and I've copied that quote below. It was not referenced, so, when you have a moment, would you mind giving the citation:

Quote:

---

There are a number of serious problems with the three-party picture, foremost of which is that it makes no legal or moral sense for an innocent third-party victim to suffer the penalty for the wrongdoer. If such an arrangement could actually satisfy God, then we would be forced to conclude that His law and His wrath are irrational and arbitrary, meaning there is no actual relationship between law and sin and death. If God’s wrath can be appeased by venting rage on an innocent third party, then it follows that there is no real problem with sin other than the fact that God doesn’t want us doing it: His law is arbitrary. Moreover, since we have failed to meet His arbitrary demands, we had better suffer ourselves or find a whipping boy to suffer in our place: His wrath is arbitrary.

Did the Father cause the suffering and death of Christ?

Yes and no!

Yes, if we mean He delivered Him over to suffering and death according to His own wise purpose of grace. Yes, if we mean that the Father gave up His Son to experience the tormenting psychological agony of our guilt.

No, if we mean He acted as an arbitrary source of pain and death, as the tormentor and executioner of His Son. No, if we mean that the Father assumed a position of vicious hostility toward His Son. Christ suffered and died at *our* hands, under the burden of *our* sin, by the gracious, self-sacrificing purpose of the Father…. Ty Gibson, quoted on another thread.

---

This quote from Gibson definitely leans towards your view Tom, and it would be nice if Gibson would explain what he means, but at MSDAOL we haven't had much success with inviting authors to explain themselves. I can't think of a single case where they have responded, so I won't trouble Gibson other than to reaffirm publicly here that we would certainly welcome his input.

I've only read one of his books, An Endless Falling in Love, and I didn't see the above thinking in it.

And his thinking above appears to be somewhere in the middle between yours and the historic Adventist/SOP view, although I have to say, regarding the truth of substitutionary atonement, the innocent lamb of God suffering in the place of the guilty sinner, it does appear closer to your view than to the views of Christendom – Catholic and Protestant.

Substitutionary atonement is one of the doctrines that although buried under many superstitions survived in Catholicism. It was rescued by Luther and others from the debris and is foundational to justification and righteousness by faith, the great principles of the Reformation and of the ancient faith of our Fathers. Should we be surprised that it is coming under attack? Yes and no. Yes that the attack is coming from within the most reformed of the Protestant churches. No because it is foundational to genuine faith. The devil knows its strength. He therefore hates this doctrine.

TE: 1.Satan didn't bear our sin.

MM: Not yet. But he will in the lake of fire. Jesus Himself will place them upon Satan.

TE: 2.To say that Satan doesn't accomplish the same thing Jesus did by dying is rather odd…. You can't really say that Satan's death accomplishes anything, in the same sense that Jesus' did.

MM: True. Satan’s dying with our sin and second death in the lake of fire is in no way salvific. But it is the means and method by which Jesus will eliminate our sin and second death.

TE: The "real result" of sinning is "death, the second death." This is just what you wrote.

MM: You know what I meant. Death is not the natural result of sinning. God executes the death sentence when the time is right. On this we disagree. You believe sinners die when God ceases holding in check the natural course of things.

TE: There's no indication that God executed His Son, which is what your theology would suggest He must do, correct? If the method of death for the wicked is death by execution, and Christ's death is exchanged for the death of the repentent wicked, then if the wicked are to be executed, Christ must have been executed. That follows, doesn't it?

MM: Jesus laid down and took up His own life. The wicked will not do this in the lake of fire. Jesus’ life and death is salvific. The life and death of the wicked will not be salvific. There are other things about the life and death of Jesus that have no parallel in the life and death of the wicked. That’s why I keep pointing out that it is the scapegoat, Satan, who suffers with our sin and second death in the lake of fire – not Jesus. Jesus life and death symbolizes the life and death of the saved – not the unsaved. Here’s how Paul put it:

Romans
6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

TE: So which is it?

MM: Good question. In the case of Adam and Eve they would have experienced the crushing weight of guilt just before God executed them. Guilt would not have killed them. Instead, God would have ended their lives after they suffered in proportion to their sinfulness.

TE: This is what I've been presenting.

MM: Again, let me reaffirm that I also believe this is an important element in the final demise of the wicked. Unlike you, however, I also believe literal fire is another element involved in the punishment and death of the wicked in the lake of fire. I believe both happen. You do not.

Thomas, the SDA view of the scapegoat is clearly explained in GC and PP. Do you agree with Sister White's biblical study on it? She uses tons of scripture to explain it. I see no reason for me to duplicate it here. Please read her Bible study on it and let me know if you agree. Thank you.

Those books cover some 1500 pages together, if you dont want to provide the biblical basis yourself, the least you could do is to narrow the search down a bit.

/Thomas