The point that has been urged upon my mind for years is the imputed righteousness of Christ. I have wondered that this matter was not made the subject of discourses in our churches throughout the land, when the matter has been kept so constantly urged upon me, and I have made it the subject of nearly every discourse and talk that I have given to the people. {FW 18.1}

I agree with her. But your stance against imputed righteousness is not congruent with hers, unless you believe she spent "nearly every discourse and talk" on something that is not a part of salvation.

It is the righteousness of Christ that makes the penitent sinner acceptable to God and works his justification. However sinful has been his life, if he believes in Jesus as his personal Saviour, he stands before God in the spotless robes of Christ's imputed righteousness. {FW 106.1}

I've been thinking about this off and on for a few days. While it seems to have some validity, it doesn't account for all the data.

If our restoration required Jesus becoming sin for us, healing Himself, dying, then resurrecting, that means Moses and Elijah were not restored. That also means grace was not available to anyone before about A.D 30. Therefore, either Elijah is lost or he was saved without grace. Both options are problematic.

Your assumption is that God's knowledge is locked in time. The same question you ask can apply to all aspect. If (IF) Christ's death solved a legal problem, was not the problem also faced by Moses, Enoch and Elijah? The question remains, "why did Jesus have to die?"

So, did God already have the necessary knowledge for salvation/restoration in the days of Enoch, Moses, and Elijah?


Yes, they faced the same problem. Hence, their salvation was provisional until Jesus sealed the deal.


There is no remission without the shedding of blood.

What is salvation? A legal pardon, or gaining the ability to cease to sin? Redemption is ceasing to sin. So to summarize what you are saying is that their ability to cease to sin was provisional...
Define remission.

This word appears in the KJV-NT 10 times. Each time it comes from the Greek word "Aphesis" (G859) which comes from the word Apheimi, G863. Apheimi is often translated forgive. But also translated, "left", as they "left their nets", or "Leave", as in "leave your gifts at the alter", or "leave the ninty and nine", Or "yielded up" as in "yielded up the ghost". Another word translated forgive is Charizomai. Aphesis and Apheimi have to do with what happens in an offender. Charizomai had to do with what happens in the offended, and is typically what we think of when we say, "I forgive you". We no long hold something against another. This is not what Aphesis/Apheimi is about.

In medicine we speak of a disease going into "remission". This is when the disease goes away, the causative problem is removed. This is the concept of Apheimi/Aphesis. Do you want your cancer to be forgiven (Charizomai) or to go into remission (Apheimi/Aphesis)? You want the latter - aways!!!

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

the word translated "forgive" is Apheimi. Second half of the verse is a parallelism, it expands on the first half. We confess our sins, he will "forgive", cleanse, cause to go into remission our sins. It is not "forgive" (Charizomai) in the usual sense of american english. This "forgiveness" (Apheimi) does not happen in the offended person, but in the offender. Huge difference. So yes, without the shedding of blood, without the death of Christ, we cannot have remission of sin. The remission happening in us, not in God!!! But don't stop there! The work in the heavenly sanctuary is just as necessary as the death of Christ. EGW: "The intercession of Christ in man's behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was his death upon the cross." {4SP 313.2} Without the death, there would have been the knowledge to solve the problem, that is God's grace. (Isaiah 53:11; Titus 3:5-7). And the knowledge needs to be applied (Aphesis) for simple forgiveness (Charizomai) does not work. We need to be changed, healed (Apheimi).

My question first: So, did God already have the necessary knowledge for salvation/restoration in the days of Enoch, Moses, and Elijah?

Remember above, you are disagreeing with me and the only the I said about the "imputed" righteousness of Christ was an EGW quote. From that you assumed I had a wrong view, when all I did was quote EGW, the reference is: {BEcho, February 8, 1897 par. 7} You said:"Based on that quote". It was HER words you are objecting to!

The question then has to be asked, what does it mean to "impute" Christ's righteousness? The word translated Impute/Imputed in the NT is Logizomai. Included in the definition of this word is "to pass to one's account, to impute". If I do a bank transfer, pass to your account, $100 dollars to your account, do you have $100 now or not? You do! You actually have it. Imputing Christ's righteousness is making it your own. Without it, we are unable to obey the law. We cannot be saved IN our sins. We must be saved FROM our sins. We must put on Christ's righteousness, His robe of righteousness, which as the Bible Echo quote says, it not a cloak, a hiding of iniquity. God does not call us righteous, unless we are, for God cannot lie. The Bible Echo quote needs to be understood for what it is saying.

How does time work for God? Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Was He slain from the foundation? Or was the knowledge that He would be sacrificed, and/or the knowledge OF that sacrifice known? The question remains, "why did Jesus have to die?".

When I asked you about imputed righteousness, you cited a quote that was negative toward it. If that's not what you meant, you made a poor choice of quotes. Now you are backing off your original stance based on clear SOP.

I agree with her. You, not so much.

So, YES, God already had all the necessary knowledge for salvation/restoration in the days of Enoch, Moses, and Elijah. Is that right?