Another look at why Jesus had to die?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/26/05 01:02 AM

Why did Jesus have to die? It has been suggested that the primary reason Jesus had to die was to demonstrate the self-denying, self-sacrificing love of God, that it was needful in order to disprove Satan's accusations about God. This is certainly one of the reasons Jesus died on the cross, but is it the primary reason?

According to the following insights, what are the main reasons Jesus died?

LHU 76
When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible. {LHU 76.2}

1SM 340, 341
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {1SM 340.1}

Man through sin has been severed from the life of God. His soul is palsied through the machinations of Satan, the author of sin. Of himself he is incapable of sensing sin, incapable of appreciating and appropriating the divine nature. Were it brought within his reach there is nothing in it that his natural heart would desire it. The bewitching power of Satan is upon him. All the ingenious subterfuges the devil can suggest are presented to his mind to prevent every good impulse. Every faculty and power given him of God has been used as a weapon against the divine Benefactor. So, although He loves him, God cannot safely impart to him the gifts and blessings He desires to bestow. {1SM 340.2}

But God will not be defeated by Satan. He sent His Son into the world, that through His taking the human form and nature, humanity and divinity combined in Him would elevate man in the scale of moral value with God. {1SM 340.3}

There is no other way for man's salvation. "Without me," says Christ, "ye can do nothing" (John 15:5). Through Christ, and Christ alone, the springs of life can vitalize man's nature, transform his tastes, and set his affections flowing toward heaven. Through the union of the divine with the human nature Christ could enlighten the understanding and infuse His life-giving properties through the soul dead in trespasses and sins. {1SM 341.1}

When the mind is drawn to the cross of Calvary, Christ by imperfect sight is discerned on the shameful cross. Why did He die? In consequence of sin. What is sin? The transgression of the law. Then the eyes are open to see the character of sin. The law is broken but cannot pardon the transgressor. It is our schoolmaster, condemning to punishment. Where is the remedy? The law drives us to Christ, who was hanged upon the cross that He might be able to impart His righteousness to fallen, sinful man and thus present men to His Father in His righteous character. {1SM 341.2}

Christ on the cross not only draws men to repentance toward God for the transgression of His law--for whom God pardons He first makes penitent--but Christ has satisfied Justice; He has proffered Himself as an atonement. His gushing blood, His broken body, satisfy the claims of the broken law, and thus He bridges the gulf which sin has made. He suffered in the flesh, that with His bruised and broken body He might cover the defenseless sinner. The victory gained at His death on Calvary broke forever the accusing power of Satan over the universe and silenced his charges that self-denial was impossible with God and therefore not essential in the human family. {1SM 341.3}

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/26/05 04:08 PM

Yes, that is so true MM,
God could not just forgive us, because we would/could not accept it. We would not believe him. Our justice continued to blame, find fault and condemn. God could not do it because our righteousness would not allow it. Before forgiveness could do its work, God had to set us free from the bondage of this, our perverted justice that kills. But God would not be defeated by Satan. He sent His Son into the world, that through His taking the human form and nature, humanity and divinity combined in Him would elevate man in the scale of moral value with God. Thus God assayed to lift man up out of sinner’s perverted justice of condemnation (sinner’s moral value) to God’s justice of life (God’s moral value). The victory gained at His death on Calvary broke forever the accusing power of Satan over the universe and silenced his charges. Thus Christ put to end (satisfied) the demands of such a justice. Now God’s forgiveness can be realized in all them who are of the faith of Jesus.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/26/05 04:11 PM

Mar 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
Luk 5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

But many there are who do not believe that God can forgive either.

Luk 5:24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.

Luk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Luk 11:53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
Luk 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

Joh 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

That is the nature of the justice of sin.

Luk 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

This is the nature of the justice of God.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/26/05 05:46 PM

In order to identify the question as to why Jesus had to die, it is helpful, I think, to ask what the problem was. That is, Jesus' death solved some problem (or problems). What were they?

We could also ask the question, whose problems needed to be solved? The answer is that there were problems for all parties concerned:
1)God
2)Man
3)The onlooking universe

What were the problems for these different parties? How does the death of Christ solve these problems?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/27/05 04:38 AM

quote:
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed.

Whose justice? God’s justice, or man’s justice? Why does Justice demand the death penalty must be executed?

quote:
… but Christ has satisfied Justice; He has proffered Himself as an atonement. His gushing blood, His broken body, satisfy the claims of the broken law, and thus He bridges the gulf which sin has made.

Who is Justice, with an upper case “J”, God or man? What are the claims of the law? How did Jesus satisfy the claims of the broken law?

quote:
Why did He die? In consequence of sin. What is sin? The transgression of the law.

What does “in consequence of sin” mean? Where does it say in the Bible or the SOP that Jesus had to die because of our perverted views of justice and forgiveness, sin and righteousness? What about sin and the death penalty, do they have anything to do with it?

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/27/05 06:55 AM

To consider the answer to the question of why Jesus had to die, I think it would first be helpful to ask what problems needed to be solved. There was a war in heaven. What was the cause of this war? How could the war be won?

The one who caused the war in heaven, brought his sophistry to earth. By deception, he led our parents to rebel. How does the death of Christ fix these problems?

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/27/05 07:00 AM

1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Death is an enemy to God’s justice.

But God will not be defeated by Satan. He sent His Son into the world, that through His taking the human form and nature, humanity and divinity combined in Him would elevate man in the scale of moral value with God. {1SM 340.3}

Why did He die? In consequence of sin. He was hanged upon the cross that He might be able to impart His righteousness to fallen, sinful man and thus present men to His Father in His righteous character. {1SM 341.2}
The victory gained at His death on Calvary broke forever the accusing power of Satan over the universe and silenced his charges {1SM 341.3}

But many there are who do not believe that God can forgive.

quote:
… but Christ has satisfied Justice; He has proffered Himself as an atonement. His gushing blood, His broken body, satisfy the claims of the broken law, and thus He bridges the gulf which sin has made.

It is in our hearts and minds that the law was broken; there is where the gulf is made. There is where Christ satisfies the claims of the broken law by bridging the gulf which sin has made.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/27/05 10:18 PM

Let's consider a couple of statements:

EGW: But God will not be defeated by Satan. He sent His Son into the world, that through His taking the human form and nature, humanity and divinity combined in Him would elevate man in the scale of moral value with God. {1SM 340.3}

Tom: This implies that the work of Christ defeated Satan. How did it do this? It also indicates that Christ's work would elevate man in the scale of moral worth -- that is, it makes man more valueable. What does this mean? How does what Christ did make man more valueable in a moral sense?

EGW: Why did He die? In consequence of sin. He was hanged upon the cross that He might be able to impart His righteousness to fallen, sinful man and thus present men to His Father in His righteous character. {1SM 341.2}

Tom: What does it mean to have Christ's righteousness imparted to us? How does Christ's death enable this to happen?

EGW: The victory gained at His death on Calvary broke forever the accusing power of Satan over the universe and silenced his charges {1SM 341.3}

Tom: This provides a bit of an answer to the previous question of how the death of Christ accomplished a victory, but needs to be fleshed out. Also to answer the question as to what the victory was that Christ was and why it was necessary, it is helpful to ask the question, what were the problems which needed to be solved.

John wrote this:

quote:
It is in our hearts and minds that the law was broken; there is where the gulf is made. There is where Christ satisfies the claims of the broken law by bridging the gulf which sin has made.

This, to my way of thinking, is hitting the nail right on the head. It begs the question as to how Christ's death accomplished this.

Posted By: Ikan

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/28/05 03:49 AM

It's the Judicial versus Authentic.

Look: A rapist can bewail his guilt at breaking Statute 6, Sub-paragraph B.II of the Anytown, USA penal code and admit guilt and plead the mercy of the court, or not, before the law. If he serves his time be is called "repentant" and "reformed", WITH his heart absolutely untouched! Outer 'justice' is served.

The Authentic Gospel goes to the heart of the problem....the heart of the rapist.
"Exchange your evil heart for Mine, or it will be the death of you. The paycheck for Sin, Sin pays and it is eternal death. I will give Life only."

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/28/05 07:05 AM

In our world, all we know is artificial justice, which is justice by force. If a person breaks some law, an arrest warrant is issued. If the accused avoids arrest, he is hunt down and when discover he is "brought to justice." This is what justice is like in our world.

However, God's justice is mercy and compassion. It is His being gracious. This justice is completely foreign to our world.

The death of Christ worked out God's justice, not the justice of this world. However, in order to communicate, God will at times use language or metaphors we are familiar with as a way of explaining the unknown by the known. To discover the truth, we should turn to Christ. Christ revealed the justice of God, which was not eye for eye or touth for touth, but turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, give the shirt as well as the coat; in other words, Christ showed the justice of God is mercy and compassion; it is forgiveness.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/28/05 07:11 PM

quote:
It is in our hearts and minds that the law was broken; there is where the gulf is made. There is where Christ satisfies the claims of the broken law by bridging the gulf which sin has made.

According to the quotes posted above Jesus satisfied the law on the cross, not in our mind and heart. Justice (i.e., God) demanded that the death penalty be executed, and Jesus satisfied this demand on the cross, not in our mind and heart.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/28/05 07:17 PM

quote:
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed.

God does not dismiss the death penalty when He pardons us. Mercy and compassion does not negate the death penalty.

Jesus did not die on the cross to primarily help us realize our views of justice and mercy, sin and rightetousness, are perverted. No, He died on the cross primarily to satisfy God's demand that the death penalty be executed.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/28/05 10:08 PM

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/28/05 11:36 PM

1. What are the problems that need to be solved?

FMAs have sinned and must die. It has been blamed on God for enforcing a law that not even He is willing to obey. To vindicate God’s law and character, and to pardon mankind, the death penalty must be executed.

2. There was a war in heaven. What was the cause of this war? How could the war be won?

Lucifer refused to repent. War broke out between Jesus and His angels and Lucifer and his angels. Jesus prevailed, and the evil angels were cast down to earth. To win the great controversy Jesus must disprove Satan’s accusations about His kingdom and character, and prove that obeying the law is the only way to experience true peace and happiness.

3. The one who caused the war in heaven, brought his sophistry to earth. By deception, he led our parents to rebel. How does the death of Christ fix these problems?

The death of Christ on the cross is only part of the solution. He also had to live a perfect life. After His resurrection, Jesus had to intercede between God and man in the heavenly sanctuary, first in the HP, and then in the MHP. He must also empower the 144,000 to perfectly reproduce His character. In the end, Jesus must punish and destroy the unsaved in the lake of fire, and restore paradise lost.

The death of Jesus on the cross solves several problems. The primary problem it addresses is the death penalty. God required that the death penalty be executed, and Jesus took that upon Himself on the cross. Now that the death penalty has been paid, God is free to pardon us, and to empower us to reproduce Jesus’ sinless character.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/29/05 02:10 AM

What Law was broken?

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love

Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

God has never ceased fulfilling the Law. God is Love. It is in our hearts and minds that the law was broken; there is where the gulf is made. Sin has broken God’s Law of life, and established the law of sin and death. There is where Christ satisfies the claims of the broken law by bridging the gulf which sin has made.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

MM, your idea of Justice is outside of God's Law, for it worketh ill to his neighbor; it only and ever works death.

God's idea of justice is Life Everlasting. Therefore God can save.

There are many who do not believe that God can forgive, despite all that Jesus has said and done.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/29/05 03:07 AM

Tom: Thank you, MM, for answering my questions.

Old Tom: 1. What are the problems that need to be solved?

MM: FMAs have sinned and must die. It has been blamed on God for enforcing a law that not even He is willing to obey. To vindicate God’s law and character, and to pardon mankind, the death penalty must be executed.

Tom: So the problem that needed to be fixed was with God's law. It needed to be vindicated because of sin. God was able to fix the problem with His law by executuing the death penatly.

Old Tom: 2. There was a war in heaven. What was the cause of this war? How could the war be won?

MM: Lucifer refused to repent. War broke out between Jesus and His angels and Lucifer and his angels. Jesus prevailed, and the evil angels were cast down to earth. To win the great controversy Jesus must disprove Satan’s accusations about His kingdom and character, and prove that obeying the law is the only way to experience true peace and happiness.

Tom: So the death of Christ has nothing to do with the problems which began in heaven? At least your answer does not suggest that Christ's death had anything to do with solving that problem.

Old Tom: 3. The one who caused the war in heaven, brought his sophistry to earth. By deception, he led our parents to rebel. How does the death of Christ fix these problems?

MM: The death of Christ on the cross is only part of the solution. He also had to live a perfect life. After His resurrection, Jesus had to intercede between God and man in the heavenly sanctuary, first in the HP, and then in the MHP. He must also empower the 144,000 to perfectly reproduce His character. In the end, Jesus must punish and destroy the unsaved in the lake of fire, and restore paradise lost.

The death of Jesus on the cross solves several problems. The primary problem it addresses is the death penalty. God required that the death penalty be executed, and Jesus took that upon Himself on the cross. Now that the death penalty has been paid, God is free to pardon us, and to empower us to reproduce Jesus’ sinless character.

Tom: You say that God required the death penalty be executed. Why? That is, why did God require this?

Let's say for the sake of argument that God did not require a death penalty to be paid. In this case, would it have been necessary for Christ do die? If He didn't require a death penalty, could we have been forgiven without Christ's death on the cross?

Finally, how is it that God could forgive Satan's sins without a death penalty being executed, but not ours? (God would have accepted Satan back into his former position, after he had sinned, on the condition of repentance. No blood was necessary)

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/29/05 03:08 AM

quote:
It is in our hearts and minds that the law was broken; there is where the gulf is made. Sin has broken God’s Law of life, and established the law of sin and death. There is where Christ satisfies the claims of the broken law by bridging the gulf which sin has made.

This was wonderfully put!

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/30/05 06:55 AM

John, I agree with you that Jesus empowers us to love God and man. I also happen to agree with Sister White that God demanded the death penalty be executed, and it was.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/29/05 07:38 PM

quote:
Let's say for the sake of argument that God did not require a death penalty to be paid. In this case, would it have been necessary for Christ do die? If He didn't require a death penalty, could we have been forgiven without Christ's death on the cross?

Assuming such a thing for the sake of argument assumes such a thing was possible, which, of course, it was not. The death of Jesus accomplishes many things, most notably it satisfied God’s demand that the death penalty be executed. Why does God require the death penalty? Good question. What do you think?

quote:
Finally, how is it that God could forgive Satan's sins without a death penalty being executed, but not ours? (God would have accepted Satan back into his former position, after he had sinned, on the condition of repentance. No blood was necessary)

Where does it say in the Bible or the SOP that Lucifer had already “sinned” by the time God offered to restore him to his former status? Nowhere in the following account does Sister White say Lucifer had sinned. Are you also one of those people who believe Eve sinned before she ate the forbidden fruit?

PP 39
“In great mercy, according to His divine character, God bore long with Lucifer. The spirit of discontent and disaffection had never before been known in heaven. It was a new element, strange, mysterious, unaccountable. Lucifer himself had not at first been acquainted with the real nature of his feelings; for a time he had feared to express the workings and imaginings of his mind; yet he did not dismiss them. He did not see whither he was drifting. But such efforts as infinite love and wisdom only could devise, were made to convince him of his error. His disaffection was proved to be without cause, and he was made to see what would be the result of persisting in revolt.

“Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong. He saw that "the Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works" (Psalm 145:17); that the divine statutes are just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels. He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had left his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office.

“The time had come for a final decision; he must fully yield to the divine sovereignty or place himself in open rebellion. He nearly reached the decision to return, but pride forbade him. It was too great a sacrifice for one who had been so highly honored to confess that he had been in error, that his imaginings were false, and to yield to the authority which he had been working to prove unjust.”

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/30/05 06:50 AM

Tom: Let's say for the sake of argument that God did not require a death penalty to be paid. In this case, would it have been necessary for Christ do die? If He didn't require a death penalty, could we have been forgiven without Christ's death on the cross?

MM: Assuming such a thing for the sake of argument assumes such a thing was possible, which, of course, it was not.

Tom: It wsn't possible for God not to require a death penalty? Why not?

But please humor me, because I believe my question is important, getting to the heart of the matter. Let's assume it was possible for God not to require a death penalty. If He didn't require a death penalty to be paid (let's say, for example, that it is we who required the penalty to be paid, as if we were the one who needed it, rather than God) would it have been possible for us to have received God's forgiveness? Could we have been reconciled to God without Christ's death?

This begs the question as to how Christ's death reconciles us, the answer of which is found in Col. 1:19-21 as well as 1 Pet. 2:24, 25 and 1 Pet. 3:18.

MM: The death of Jesus accomplishes many things, most notably it satisfied God’s demand that the death penalty be executed. Why does God require the death penalty? Good question. What do you think?

Tom: I think we required it. We were the ones who sinned, not God. God doesn't need anything; He's perfect.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/30/05 07:41 AM

quote:
Leaving his place in the immediate presence of God, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. Working with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealing his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God, he endeavored to excite dissatisfaction concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that they imposed an unnecessary restraint. Since their natures were holy, he urged that the angels should obey the dictates of their own will. He sought to create sympathy for himself, by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ. He claimed that in aspiring to greater power and honor he was not aiming at self-exaltation, but was seeking to secure liberty for all the inhabitants of Heaven, that by this means they might attain to a higher state of existence.

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
496
pardon, on condition of repentance and submission.
(GC88 495, 496)

The things in bold are sins. The part underlined stats "Again and again" Lucifer was offered "pardon". One does not need pardon if one has not sinned. Not only once was Lucifer offered pardon, but "again and again."

What was the condition of pardon? Repentance and submission. Was it necessary for God to execute a death penalty in order to pardon Lucifer? No, it wasn't.

Why was death necessary for man, and not for God?

Here's the answer:

quote:
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 761.5}

It is by beholding God's character than man is brought back to God. To reveal God's character was the whole purpose of Christ's mission:

quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. (ST 1/20/90)

What EGW is bringing out here is in perfect harmony with Scripture. For example, consider the following from 1 Peter:

quote:
2:24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

2:25For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

We were sheep going astray, but have been returned to God. Peter again brings this out in the next chapter:

[quote}3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:[/quote]

Paul brings out the same truth:

quote:
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.(Col. 1:19-21)

We were alienated in our minds, and enemies of God. Just like Adam and Eve, who ran in fear of God, ignorant of His true character because of the damage sin had inflicted upon them, sin has damaged our minds, make us to see God as our enemy, and alientating us from Him. The problem is all in our mind; it is in our mind that sin resides, and it is our mind that must be healed. It is the blood of the cross which accomplishes this healing. It is by the blood that we are reconciled to God.

Here's how Fifield put it:

quote:
But the pagan sacrifice speaks of a god of wrath and anger, whose wrath must in some way be appeased, perchance by the blood of a lamb, or it may be only by the blood of a fair maid, or innocent child, or some other human victim. When he smells the freshly flowing blood, they believe his vengeance will be satisfied, and he will be propitiated. What shall we say of the false idea of the atonement, held even by many in the popular Protestant churches of today, and expressed in a late confession of faith in these words, “Christ died to reconcile the Father unto us”? This is not the place to enter into a discussion of that theme; suffice it to say that it is the pagan idea of sacrifice applied to Christianity. God, they think, was angry; he must pour forth his wrath upon some one. If upon man, it would eternally damn him, as he deserved; but this would interfere with God’s plan and purpose in creating the worlds, so this must not be. And yet God must not be cheated of his vengeance; for this reason he pours it forth upon Christ, that man may go free. So when Christ died, he was slain really by the wrath and anger of the Father. This is paganism. The true idea of the atonement makes God and Christ equal in their love, and one in their purpose of saving humanity. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.” The life of Christ was not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but that 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. Thus Satan has transformed the truth of God’s love into a lie, and even infused this lie into the very doctrine of the atonement. pp. 33-34

The word “atonement” means at-one-ment. Sin had brought misery, and misery had brought a misunderstanding of God’s character. Thus men had come to hate God instead of loving him; and hating him, the one Father, men also hated man, their brother. Thus, instead of the one family and the one Father, men were separated from God and from each other, and held apart by hatred and selfishness. There must be an atonement…the atonement is not to appease God’s wrath, so that man dare come to him, but it is to reveal his love, so that they will come to him. It was not Christ reconciling God unto the world, but God in Christ reconciling the world to himself. It is nowhere said that God needed to be reconciled to us…pp. 100 from God is Love

Here is a concise statement from Fifield:

quote:
Every text in the Bible that speaks of the atonement, when we get it right, makes God the one who makes the atonement in Christ; not Christ simply, but God in Christ; just as God in Christ creates, redeems, reconciles, He makes the atonement. And every time the atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation are mentioned, it leads us right back to the character of God. (from the 1897 GCB)

This is the truth. Nowhere does the Bible speak of the wrath of God being appeased by the sacrifice of Christ. Nowhere does it state that God required that a death penatly be paid in order to have the legal right to forgive us. In fact, nowhere does the Bible portray the problem of man as a legal one at all. It is a problem of a broken relationship, of a damaged mind.

The need of man is to be healed, to be reconciled. This could only be accomplished by Jesus Christ, whose whole purpose was to reveal the true character of God.

Posted By: myarsman

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/30/05 08:14 PM

MM has presented a very interesting and important question...."Why did Jesus have to die?"

As of yet, no answer has been provided.

Why did Jesus have to die?

Why didn't God just say that all sinners could be forgiven of their sins and any sinner who accepted this forgiveness would be saved?

Why was the death of an innocent victim a neccessity to mankind's salvation?

Again, couldn't have God just forgiven us and then we could be saved?

The answer to that question is Yes.

But........

Something had to be demonstrated to the universe that would prove once and for all what the true nature of sin is.

So.....

My question is this...... What is the true nature of sin that requires the death of an innocent victim so that the guilty can be saved?

There is an answer to this question.....Here is a hint.....The death suffered by Jesus, and the Wicked, is NOT a penalty or punishment ......Instead it is a natural consequence.

Jesus' death did NOT satisfy any requirements of the Law. Jesus death did NOT appease God and therefore make it possible for Him to forgive sinners.

Come on gentlemen....Let's reason this out for a bit and please, please do not throw various quotations and statements out in an attempt to provide an answer to this question.

Give me your best and most well-thought out explanation as to why Jesus had to die.

Posted By: John H.

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/30/05 09:38 PM

quote:
...please do not throw various quotations and statements out in an attempt to provide an answer to this question.

Ummm.... we're not supposed to use Inspiration to answer core questions dealing with salvation? Sorry, but that just won't work.

"Canst thou by searching find out God?" Job 11:7

Human reasoning by itself doesn't, and can't, get the job done when exploring such areas of thought. We must have revelations handed down to us by the Almighty if we're even going to *begin* to understand Him.

Posted By: Will

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/30/05 09:56 PM

Very true John.

quote:

Proverbs 29:18
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.

.
God Bless & Happy Sabbath
Will

Posted By: myarsman

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/30/05 11:46 PM

Sorry gentlemen, but I consider that a form of cop-out.

I would hope to be able to discuss this topic with individuals who have formulated their own conclusions through prayerful thought and contemplation.

It is unfortunate that the two of you are unable to do such.

Posted By: Will

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/31/05 02:52 AM

Its ok myarsman. Thats your opinion. You are entitled to have your own opinion, and by having your own opinion you also have the ability and freedom to speak what is on your mind which doesn't equate to you being right as we have seen many times before, because its your opinion, and not a stated fact historically nor Biblically. Its more like "Wahh, you guys are chicken, cmon lets see who can run faster over the cliff.", so you'll prod, push, and resort to the typical come back with "well thats not the same God I serve" rhetoric ad nauseum square root to the power of 10 reciprocated. *YaWnN*
God Bless & Happy Sabbath,
Will

Posted By: myarsman

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/31/05 03:36 AM

Will,

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

I was hoping that there could be some very meaningful discussion on this all-important topic, but it does not appear that this will be the case.

Tom, on the other hand has made some very good comments regarding MM's initial question as to why Jesus had to die, but unfortunately no one has responded to them.

With that said, I would like to make the following statements to see if we can get a good fire going on this topic.

As I had mentioned earlier, Jesus' death was not required so that God "could/would" forgive sinners. Nor was Jesus' death a penalty or punishment that met any requirement of the "Law".

Jesus' death was a "natural consequence" that takes place when an individual sins.

You may ask..."How is that so?"

Let me illustrate.

Sin originated when Satan believed and acted on his belief that it was possible to be "like God". This meant that Satan believed that he could become an "independent being" just like God is an "independent being".

An independent being is someone who is not dependent upon another being for his/her lifeforce. An independent being is able to generate "life" within itself.

Unfortunately, Satan could/would not accept the "fact" that it was impossible for him to continue to exist "independently" of his Creator.

The "natural consequence" of a "created being" become "independent" of his Creator is instantaneous and permanent Death or a state of non-existence.

You see, there is a Fact of Life that states that all "created beings" are eternally dependent upon their "Creator" for their "Life-Force/Breath of Life".

Satan believed that it was possible to "live" independently of God and that it was possible for all the other "created beings" to do likewise.

I am certain that God made every attempt to persuade Satan of the folly of his choice to attempt a separation from God, but it was to no avail.

The quandary that God was faced with was this.....

The universe had never experienced "Death" before and how was He to demonstrate the "natural consequence" of sin without bringing about the death of a "created being". Also how was He to do this without creating fear within all of His universe that the death of this "created being" was caused by God's retribution or anger.

I hope that this statement was not too confusing.

Anyway, Jesus death demonstrated to the universe what happens when a "created being" is separated from its "Creator". Throughout His entire life, Jesus had proclaimed a "dependency" upon His Heavenly Father. And yet, at the cross, Jesus experienced "separation" from God and this resulted in His death.

The heavenly observers witnessed this and came to the realization that the "natural consequence" of sin is "Death" and it was then resolved in their minds that Satan's premise that it is possible to exist "independently" of God is a "Lie/Falsehood".

When Jesus ascended to Heaven, the unfallen beings welcomed Him as the Saviour of the World and at the same time rejected Satan and his angels. It was at this time that the War in Heaven took place and Satan was then banished to this earth to await His inevitable death.

Not only did Jesus' death demonstrate the "natural consequence" of sin, but God also stated that Jesus' death would be substitutionary for all sinners who would repent and desire an "atonement" with God. Jesus would die the death that all sinners should experience.

I'll stop for now, because that is probably a bit much for you to digest.

(Please note that I did not quote anyone.)

Posted By: John H.

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/31/05 04:13 AM

myarsman,

As Will said, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. As are we all.

But for you to lay down the condition that we can't use inspired statements in a discussion about divine subjects is just plain silly. That's like saying we should have a court case, but nobody is allowed to introduce evidence beyond their own opinion. Nothing of any real use could possibly get accomplished that way.

You're not an authority, I'm not an authority. No uninspired human is an authority. The only way we can nail down what's really what when speaking of God is to reference His messages to us, as communicated through His Son, and His apostles and prophets.

In fact, it's sort of ironic -- your post right above this one contains information none of us would have if we hadn't read the Bible. So you indirectly quoted Scripture in putting forth those ideas. It's okay to quote Bible passages indirectly, as you have, but not to quote Inspiration directly? That doesn't compute.

Posted By: myarsman

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/31/05 06:21 AM

John,

I am not attempting to dictate any conditions as to how the participants on this forum are to discuss this particular topic.

What I am trying to do is to challenge each participant to present their understanding on this subject in their own words, which would indicate that they have thoroughly "thought-out" this particular subject.

It is easy to perform "word-searches" on any particular subject and then use the quotations of others to present your position on any particular topic. It is quite another thing to contemplate and rationalize a topic of discussion and then present your conclusions using your own thoughts and words.

The challenge that I present to you is for you to give careful thought to these conclusions and then comment on them as you wish.

I ask that you please take no offense at the request that I have made as to the "quotations" that have been submitted on this forum. I have been an SDA all my life and have witnessed firsthand how some individuals allow others to do the thinking for them and then they just play the role of "parrot".

But I digress.......

Yes, the statements that I have made can be drawn from Biblical sources, but as you can clearly see, these statements are not direct quotes. Also, the conclusions that I have presented are somewhat different from any other that has been presented on this topic.

I would ask that you comment on these conclusions, solely, and not "zero-in" on any requests that I may have made that you would deem as unfair. If you wish to use the quotations of others, then that is your right to do so. I can not stop you for doing such.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/31/05 06:37 AM

Bob, I provided reasons in the long post right before your first one, but I'll restate them succinctly here. Basically I think only by Christ's becoming a human being could God's character be clearly revealed, and without that revelation man could not be healed. Also Christ revealed God's character to unfallen worlds, which established an eternal security for the universe by making clear the character of God vs. the character of Satan and sin.

The aspect of Christ's life which most fully revealed God was His death. From Christ's death it was conclusively demonstrated that God puts the interests of creatures above His own, regardless of the cost. He is completely selfless. He loves us unserverdly, giving of Himself until there is nothing more to give. This love, fully revealed by the cross, has the capability to heal us, as well as settling forever the issues raised by the adversary in heaven.

The cross reveals as nothing else the truth about sin and death, the truth about ourselves, the truth about Satan, and above all, the truth about God.

Posted By: myarsman

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/31/05 07:14 AM

Tom,

I don't have any disagreement with the points that you have made. Jesus did reveal God's character to the world, but it was really nothing new. God had been revealing His character to the world since the beginning of time.

Of course God loved this world and that had been in evidence throughout history. Of course God wanted to save this world and that too had always been in evidence.

The great controversy is not centered around the question of "What is God like?"

The great controversy is centered around the question ...."Is it possible to be "like God/an independent being"" or to exist independently from God?"

This is the true nature of evil/sin.....The desire to be "like God" or an "independent being".

Jesus demonstrated to the universe that it was an absolute neccessity that all "created beings" remain dependent upon their "Creator".

Yes....the death of Jesus demonstrated God's Love to the universe, but God's Love was not being questioned.

More importantly though.....

Jesus' death demonstrated to the universe how evil the desire to be "like God/an Independent Being" truly was.

The "like God/Independent beings" wannabes had become murderers, thieves, liars, etc. They were no where near to being "like God".

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/31/05 04:42 PM

quote:
This is the true nature of evil/sin.....The desire to be "like God" or an "independent being".

Here the question is: what “being like God” means? For God truly wants us to be like him.

Christ prayed:
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

and God created us in his image.

So we see that there are two concepts of “God”; a false and a true. The false seems to rotate around a “physical/functional” concept while it introduces “another spirit”; while the true “being like God”, which God purposes us to be, is founded on being “one spirit” regardless of the physical/functional.

This Christ came to reveal. This he lives; this is why we crucified him. For that ‘other spirit’ is the “Law of Sin and Death” while God’s spirit is the “Law of Life”.

Posted By: myarsman

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 07/31/05 07:02 PM

quote:
Originally posted by John Boskovic:
Here the question is: what “being like God” means? For God truly wants us to be like him.

John,

You have asked a very good and important question.

The answer is......

God wishes for us to be "like Him" because He created us in His image. This means that we should emulate His character in every way. He has also endowed us with physical traits that allow us to be creative in manipulating the elements of this world into homes, tools, machinery, etc. As we continue to grow and use these "talents" in a good way, it gives glory to Him, because He is our creator and our "good works" show how well He has created us.

Of course, the power of choice, that He has endowed us with allows us to use these "God-given talents" for bad.

There is a limitation to how much we can become "like God" though.....

Fact of Life #2: It is impossible for God to create another God.

God is self-existent. We, as created being, will always be dependent upon Him for our continual existence. The Breath of Life that gives us the ability to live, comes only from Him.

God is all knowing. God knows all, including the future. This is something that we, as created beings can never attain.

God is all present. God can be everywhere simultaneously. We, as created beings, do not have that capability.

God is all powerful. God is capable of creating something from nothing by just speaking a word. This is something that we, as created beings, can not do.

So you see, there are limitations to how much "like God" we can become.

Satan believed that there were NO LIMITATIONS to what he could become. He truly believed that he could become "like God" in every way. He also believed that all other created beings could ascend to this level of "God-likeness".

I hope that this answers your question.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/01/05 08:54 AM

It seems to me, Bob(?), that we see things fairly similarly, as I agree pretty much with your points regarding dependency and independance, as you appear to agree with the points I made, sort of. The difference is one of emphasis. I think the dependence/independence issue was there, as you point out, but it was a minor issue compared to the question of the character of God. If one looks at inspiration, one sees the emphasis of the character of God much more clearly enunciated then the independence issue.

For example, from Scripture there is John 17, as John B. quoted, and from the SOP there is the ST 1/20/90 article, "God Manifest in Christ" or "God manifest in the Flesh" (or similar -- the date's correct, title maybe off a bit) which makes the point that the whole purpose of Christ's mission was to reveal God that we might be set right with Him (I'm pretty sure I quoted it in the earlier post).

There was one point, however, that I disagreed strongly with, and that was the point that Jesus did nothing new in revealing God. If this is what you really think, I think that's too bad. That truth is really the central point of Christianity.

Posted By: myarsman

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/02/05 05:41 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
There was one point, however, that I disagreed strongly with, and that was the point that Jesus did nothing new in revealing God. If this is what you really think, I think that's too bad. That truth is really the central point of Christianity.

Tom,

Are you stating that the God of the OT was totally different than the God that Jesus revealed?

Does not the OT record reveal of God of Love and Forgiveness? Does it not reveal a God of Kindness? Does it not reveal a God who cares for His creation?

Jesus did not reveal to the universe a different aspect of God that was unknown.

He did demonstrate to the universe a how a human being could remain totally dependent upon His Creator and how God could work great and marvelous things through His Son as a result.

Jesus also demonstrated to the universe how truly evil the desire for independence was. Independence was so evil that it attempted to destroy the One who chose to remain dependent upon His Creator.

A desire for Independence from God is the core evil that causes His Creation to commit evil acts.

This is the crux of the Great Controversy.

I do not find any Biblical evidence that would show that God's character was being attacked by Satan. Could you share some references?

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/02/05 06:51 AM

Do you not believe in the Spirit of Prophesy? I take it that you accept that EGW does present the points I was making, since you avoiding suggesting a reference from her writings. Do you think her view of the Great Controversy was wrong?

I think the onlooking universe was much more interested in God's character than in whether humans could be dependent upon God.

In the temptation in the Garden of Eden, the serpent insinuated that God did not have the best interests of His creatures at heart. Whether or not God was trustworthy became a point of contention, and when Adam and Eve believed the lie, it profoundly impacted them. When God came to walk with them, they did from Him. Why? Because they were ashamed and afraid. This is what sin had done to them. They no longer trusted God.

Jesus came to reveal God's true character. In John 17:3 He said that to know God is life eternal, and in vss. 4 and 6 He said that He had come to make known God's character. Christ's mission was to set men right by revealing God's character.

Col. 1:19-21 says:

quote:
19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.

The cross accomplishes reconciliation for both human beings and the unfallen beings by making known the character of God.

Posted By: myarsman

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/03/05 06:10 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Do you not believe in the Spirit of Prophesy? I take it that you accept that EGW does present the points I was making, since you avoiding suggesting a reference from her writings. Do you think her view of the Great Controversy was wrong?

Tom,

I would rather not get into a discussion concerning the validity of EGW's writings. That could be saved for another time/topic. I fully understand your reasoning for using her writings in presenting your position on this topic.

I would like to invite you to look at a different perspective that I am presenting using the Biblical record solely.

quote:
Tom wrote:
In the temptation in the Garden of Eden, the serpent insinuated that God did not have the best interests of His creatures at heart. Whether or not God was trustworthy became a point of contention, and when Adam and Eve believed the lie, it profoundly impacted them. When God came to walk with them, they did from Him. Why? Because they were ashamed and afraid. This is what sin had done to them. They no longer trusted God.

Tom,

Let us look at three different temptations to sin that three different individuals experienced and see if there are any common elements within these instances:

Lucifer:

Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Lucifer believed that He could become "equal with God". He believed that he could become an "independent being".

Eve:

Genesis 3:5.6; For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods , knowing good and evil.
6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise , she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Eve yielded to the temptation to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil because she believed that it would "me her wise", or in other words, "like God".

Jesus

Mt 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God , command that these stones be made bread.

Mt 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God , cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Jesus was tempted by the Devil to act as an "independent being/God" by turning the stones to bread and by jumping from the top of the temple. Fortunately for our sakes, he was able to resist this temptation.

As can be clearly seen, each of these three individuals was tempted to be "like God". Only one of them successfully resisted this temptation.

Please note that in these three temptation, no mention of God's character was made, nor was there a direct attack against God. Each of these individuals was tempted to be something that they could not be.....God. (Now you may state that Jesus was God, and we may have to start another thread to discuss this further.)

The point that I am trying to make is this.....

The core of all evil is the desire to be "like God" or an "independent being". It is based upon the false belief that a "created being" can become an "independent being" such as God is.

When a "created being" believes that they can become an "independent being" a "spiritual separation" begins to take place between the "created being" and the "Creator". As a result of this "spiritual separation" the "created being" begins to commit "acts of misbehavioursa"(i.e lying, stealing, killing, etc.)

I have presented this same perspective on several other discussions that have been started on this forum, but the discussion comes to an abrupt end at that point and no one seems to want to continue the discussion. It will be interesting to see if this happens again. It appears that the other participants in this thread have already chosen not to continue their participation.

The Great Controversy is centered around the dispute between God and His Creation as to whether it is possible for a "created being" to become and "independent being".

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/03/05 08:24 AM

Bob: I would like to invite you to look at a different perspective that I am presenting using the Biblical record solely.

Tom: Why?

Regarding the temptations, each temptation can be seen as a lack of trusing in God. When Eve was tempted, the essence of the temptation of the temptation was that God did not have her best interest at heart. This has to do with God's character. Similarly when Satan tempted Christ "If Thou be the Son of God" this also was tempting Him to doubt God.

The root of sin is unbelief.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/03/05 08:03 PM

Tom, the death of Jesus was necessary for many reasons - the primary reason He died was to satisfy God's demand that the death penalty be executed. Earlier you asked if God could have pardoned us without the death of Jesus, and you referred to God's willingness to pardon Lucifier without death as evidence He could have, but you failed to prove that Lucifer had "sinned" by the time God offered to restore him to his former status.

quote:
He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had left his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office.

Do you also believe Eve sinned before she ate the forbidden fruit?

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/03/05 11:12 PM

quote:
Tom, the death of Jesus was necessary for many reasons - the primary reason He died was to satisfy God's demand that the death penalty be executed. Earlier you asked if God could have pardoned us without the death of Jesus, and you referred to God's willingness to pardon Lucifier without death as evidence He could have, but you failed to prove that Lucifer had "sinned" by the time God offered to restore him to his former status.

MM, I did prove this, in the post of July 29, 2005 10:41 PM of this thread.

Here's the key portion of the quote:

quote:
Again and again he was offered
496
pardon, on condition of repentance and submission.

This shows both that Satan had sinned repeatedly, and that he knew what he was doing. To see that Satan had sinned, it suffices to understand that pardon would not have been offered had sin not been committed. To see that Satan knew what he was doing, one need only understand that he was the most intelligent being ever created. While he may not have understood what he was doing at first, by the time "again" had rolled around, he would have known he was doing wrong, let alone "again and again."

A key point to notice on the account of Satan's repeated sin is that he was offered pardon without blood; just submission and repentance was necessary. Why? I believe the following provides the answer:

quote:
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 762)

Satan had known God so well, that a further revelation of His character would not have helped. However, Adam and Eve did not know God so well, so it was still possible for them to be reconciled to Him by a revelation of His love. In fact, the whole purpose of Christ's mission was to set men right by a revelation of God's character:

quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. In Christ was arrayed before men the paternal grace and the matchless perfections of the Father. In his prayer just before his crucifixion, he declared, "I have manifested thy name." "I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." When the object of his mission was attained,--the revelation of God to the world,--the Son of God announced that his work was accomplished, and that the character of the Father was made manifest to men.(ST 1/20/90)

What was the object of Christ's mission? The revelation of God to the world. Why was this His mission? To set men right with God. How does revealing God's character set men right with God? Man's mind had been darkened by the sophistry of Satan. By beholding God's love, man might be brought back to God.

Notice how this line of thought ties in with the Scriptures:

quote:
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God (1 Pet. 3:18).

Christ died to bring us to God. The same thought is found one chapter earlier:

quote:
24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls (1 Pet. 2:24, 25).

This also introduces the thought that we might live for righteousness. Paul expresses this thought here:

quote:
5:14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;

5:15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again (2 Cor. 5:14, 15)

Here the point is brought out that Christ died that we might live for Him (which is equivalent, in my mind, to living for righteousness, as Peter puts it).

Consider the following as well by Paul:

quote:
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. 21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled (Col. 1:19-21).

This brings out the same point, and explains that the reconciliation is accomplished by fixing the mind, which was previously alienated and at enmity with God. So the purpose of Christ's ministry, including His life and death, was to fix our mind; to heal the alienation and enmity we have against God. We are "set right" by the revelation of God's love.

Every text in scripture which clearly provides a reason for Christ's death does so in terms of His accomplishing a victory over the forces of evil or in terms of reconciling us to God. No text clearly articulates that Christ's death was necessary in order to solve some legal problem God was having or to enable Him to be able to forgive us. One can cite Rom. 3:21-26 or Isa. 53, but these passages can be interpreted in several ways, as opposed to the texts which I cited, which are interpreted the same by both sides of the issue (your side agrees with the reasons I have given, but says they were necessary but not sufficient).

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/04/05 02:09 AM

quote:
To see that Satan had sinned, it suffices to understand that pardon would not have been offered had sin not been committed.

Again, this is an assumption. Nowhere does she say Satan had “sinned” by the time God offered to restore him to his former position.

quote:
Man's mind had been darkened by the sophistry of Satan. By beholding God's love, man might be brought back to God.

This would have been immediately evident to Adam and Eve. Thus, it could have been revolved before they ever had children. Obviously, more was needed to pardon them, namely, the death penalty must be executed. It was needful to satisfy the demands of Justice (God).

Yes, the death of Jesus also demonstates the loving character of God, and many other things, but not to the exclusion of Justice.

quote:
Originally posted by MM:

Do you also believe Eve sinned before she ate the forbidden fruit?

Posted By: myarsman

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/04/05 04:36 AM

Tom,

What causes unbelief?

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/05/05 06:11 AM

Tom: To see that Satan had sinned, it suffices to understand that pardon would not have been offered had sin not been committed.

MM: Again, this is an assumption.

Tom: It's an assumption that pardon would not have been offered had not been committed?!?! What do you think pardon is?

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/05/05 06:35 AM

quote:
Do you also believe Eve sinned before she ate the forbidden fruit?

No, Eve was created sinless. Before she committed her first sin, she had never sinned.

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding the question, or the rational for it. Of course she hadn't sinned before she sinned.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/04/05 07:02 PM

Again, Sister White did not teach that Lucifer had sinned by the time God offered to restore him. You are assuming that he had already sinned. Yes, pardon can be given in cases not involving sin.

I asked about Eve because there are people who believe she sinned the moment she wandered from Adam's side. Others believe she sinned when she tarried to talked with the serpent. Still others believe she sinned when she questioned God's prohibition. Some believe she sinned when she touched the forbidden fruit. But I believe she didn't sin until she actually ate it.

Like Lucifer, I believe Eve could have been pardoned, without the death of Jesus, for everything she did up until she actually ate the forbidden fruit. Do you agree?

Are you going to respond to this insight posted above?

quote:
This would have been immediately evident to Adam and Eve. Thus, it could have been revolved before they ever had children. Obviously, more was needed to pardon them, namely, the death penalty must be executed. It was needful to satisfy the demands of Justice (God).

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/04/05 07:19 PM

quote:
Tom,

What causes unbelief?

Great question, Bob! I never thought of this.

The first thing that comes to mind that talks about unbelief is John 3. Let's see what that says:

quote:
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil (John 3:17-19)

In the case of Eve, unbelief was provoked by the serpent. After she "unbelieved", her unbelief was further enhanced by the change of nature she undertook. So for us, unbelief is natural. We need something to counteract the unbelief, which is what God has provided for us through Jesus Christ.

quote:
Hanging upon the cross Christ was the gospel. Now we have a message, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world." Will not our church members keep their eyes fixed on a crucified and risen Saviour, in whom their hopes of eternal life are centered? This is our message, our argument, our doctrine, our warning to the impenitent, our encouragement for the sorrowing, the hope for every believer. If we can awaken an interest in men's minds that will cause them to fix their eyes on Christ, we may step aside, and ask them only to continue to fix their eyes upon the Lamb of God. They thus receive their lesson. Whosoever will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. He whose eyes are fixed on Jesus will leave all. He will die to selfishness. He will believe in all the Word of God, which is so gloriously and wonderfully exalted in Christ.

As the sinner sees Jesus as He is, an all compassionate Saviour, hope and assurance take possession of his soul. The helpless soul is cast without any reservation upon Jesus. None can bear away from the vision of Christ Jesus crucified a lingering doubt. Unbelief is gone (MS 49, 1898).

I know we were avoiding quotes, but this is such a good one, I couldn't help myself.

Back to your original question, regarding what causes unbelief, I would say originally, unbelief arose out of Eve's choice to believe the serpent's lies. Then sin itself fostered a false image of God's character, which led the first pair to hide from God, being afraid of Him and ashamed. So the root problem of unbelief is an incorrect view of God's character. This false view is corrected when we see the truth about God, as revealed in His Son.

Posted By: myarsman

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/05/05 05:27 AM

Tom,

Please wait until this weekend so that we can discuss this further. There is something very important that I wish to share with you.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/05/05 08:36 PM

MM: Again, Sister White did not teach that Lucifer had sinned by the time God offered to restore him. You are assuming that he had already sinned. Yes, pardon can be given in cases not involving sin.

Tom: She listed the sins he committed, and then said God offered "again and again" to pardon him. I don't know how much evidence you need on this point. She also stated that Satan could have been restored on the condition of repentance. So we have:

1) Satan sinned repeated. These sins were listed. They included misrepresenting God, and secretly and deviously gaining support for his false accusations. These are stated in the GC88 quote.
2) God offered "again and again" to "pardon" Satan. Now "pardon" means "forgiveness" or "a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense." I challenge you to find ONE TIME in all the 100,000+ pages of the Spirit of Prophesy where she uses the word "pardon" in the context of repentance where it is not referring to sin.
3) The condition also involved "repentance". Satan would have to repent.

Let's take a closer look at the description from GC88:

quote:
Leaving his place in the immediate presence of God, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. Working with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealing his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God, he endeavored to excite dissatisfaction concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that they imposed an unnecessary restraint. Since their natures were holy, he urged that the angels should obey the dictates of their own will. He sought to create sympathy for himself, by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ. He claimed that in aspiring to greater power and honor he was not aiming at self-exaltation, but was seeking to secure liberty for all the inhabitants of Heaven, that by this means they might attain to a higher state of existence. {GC88 495.2}

Look at what Satan did:
1)He diffused a spirit of discontent among the angels.
2)He concealed his real purpose under a false guise.
3)He sought to create sympathy for himself.
4)He lied as to his real purpose (claiming it was not for self-exaltation).

So here we see that not only was Satan sinning, but he was knowingly sinning. If he didn't know what he were doing, he wouldn't have concealed his real purpose under a false guise. He would have openly voiced his discontent. His whole purpose was self-exaltation, and he resorted to lying, misrepresentations, and concealing his purposes.

Just after this we read:

quote:
He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had forsaken his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been re-instated in his office.

quote:
He persistently defended his own course, maintained that he had no need of repentance, and fully committed himself, in the great controversy, against his Maker.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/05/05 08:47 PM

Ok, Bob, I'll keep an eye out. MM; I'll respond to the rest of your post later, although I'll say I think Eve sinned when she ate of the fruit, because the command was not to eat of the fruit.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/05/05 09:54 PM

Tom, the following quote makes it clear Lucifer hadn't sinned by the time God offered to restore him. In the same way Eve hadn't sinned until she actually ate the fruit, though she doubted God's word, Lucifer hadn't sinned until he "place[d] himself in open rebellion."

quote:
PP 39, 40

In great mercy, according to His divine character, God bore long with Lucifer. The spirit of discontent and disaffection had never before been known in heaven. It was a new element, strange, mysterious, unaccountable. Lucifer himself had not at first been acquainted with the real nature of his feelings; for a time he had feared to express the workings and imaginings of his mind; yet he did not dismiss them. He did not see whither he was drifting. But such efforts as infinite love and wisdom only could devise, were made to convince him of his error. His disaffection was proved to be without cause, and he was made to see what would be the result of persisting in revolt.

Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong. He saw that "the Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works" (Psalm 145:17); that the divine statutes are just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels. He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had left his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office.

The time had come for a final decision; he must fully yield to the divine sovereignty or place himself in open rebellion. He nearly reached the decision to return, but pride forbade him. It was too great a sacrifice for one who had been so highly honored to confess that he had been in error, that his imaginings were false, and to yield to the authority which he had been working to prove unjust. {PP 39.1}

A compassionate Creator, in yearning pity for Lucifer and his followers, was seeking to draw them back from the abyss of ruin into which they were about to plunge. But His mercy was misinterpreted. Lucifer pointed to the long-suffering of God as an evidence of his own superiority, an indication that the King of the universe would yet accede to his terms. If the angels would stand firmly with him, he declared, they could yet gain all that they desired. He persistently defended his own course, and fully committed himself to the great controversy against his Maker.

Thus it was that Lucifer, "the light bearer," the sharer of God's glory, the attendant of His throne, by transgression became Satan, "the adversary" of God and holy beings and the destroyer of those whom Heaven had committed to his guidance and guardianship. {PP 39.2}

Pardon and repentance do not always involve sin. For example,

Genesis 6:7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

2 Kings
5:18 In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, [that] when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/06/05 12:09 AM

MM: You in no way addressed my post. You just rewrote what you had before.

For your convenience, I will repost the argument:

Let's take a closer look at the description from GC88:

quote:
:Leaving his place in the immediate presence of God, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. Working with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealing his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God, he endeavored to excite dissatisfaction concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that they imposed an unnecessary restraint. Since their natures were holy, he urged that the angels should obey the dictates of their own will. He sought to create sympathy for himself, by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ. He claimed that in aspiring to greater power and honor he was not aiming at self-exaltation, but was seeking to secure liberty for all the inhabitants of Heaven, that by this means they might attain to a higher state of existence. {GC88 495.2}

quote:
:He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had forsaken his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been re-instated in his office.

So even though Lucifer had been sinning, he had not committed the unpardonable sin. He had not fully cast off his allegiance to God. Until this point, he could have returned, under the condition of repentance and submission. It was only after he crossed the point of no return that he could go back.
-------------------------------------------------

You will note that I included specific reasons for seeing that Satan had sinned. He had not committed the unpardonable sin, for he could have been pardoned had he repented. Again and again he was offered pardon.

Regarding your comments on "pardon" and "repentance" I assume you were being serious, they missed the mark on several counts. Here was my challenge:

quote:
God offered "again and again" to "pardon" Satan. Now "pardon" means "forgiveness" or "a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense." I challenge you to find ONE TIME in all the 100,000+ pages of the Spirit of Prophesy where she uses the word "pardon" in the context of repentance where it is not referring to sin.

First of all, your comment has to do with Bible passages, not something from the Spirit of Prophesy. Secondly the word "repent" in Gen. 6 was not talking about God's repenting for sin, but His sorrow for having created man. When God gave Satan the ability to return to his position, that *was* in response for the commission of sin. Finally the word "pardon" in the example you gave was also not in the context of the forgiveness of sin, but rather in the context of "pardon me."

I asked for one example in the writings of the Spirit of Prophesy where the word "pardon" was used in the context of "repentance" where it's not talking about repentance for sin.

Everybody knows what pardon and repentance are about. Ask anybody what the following statement means: "God will pardon you on the condition of repentance" and they will tell you. There's no ambiguity or confusion here.

God offered Satan pardon on the condition of repentance time and time again. Clearly Satan had sinned (otherwise pardon wouldn't have been necessary) and Satan knew it (otherwise repentance would have been pointless).

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/06/05 12:33 AM

Old MM: Are you going to respond to this insight posted above?

quote:
This would have been immediately evident to Adam and Eve. Thus, it could have been revolved before they ever had children. Obviously, more was needed to pardon them, namely, the death penalty must be executed. It was needful to satisfy the demands of Justice (God).

Tom: I think I responded to your questions/comments except for this one. I think you meant "below" instead of "above" from this, so I'll proceed on this assumption.

What are the demands of justice?

quote:
8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)

Why was death necessary for man, but not for Satan? I believe the answer is found in this quote:

quote:
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 761.5}

Nothing more could be done to help Satan, but God could do something to help man.

I think John hit the nail on the head in his earlier comments regarding Christ briding the gulf sin had made. The point is that the gulf sin creates is in our minds, which is where sin resides. There was no problem between us and God, except in our minds. Our minds are what need to be fixed, and the can only be fixed if we have an accurate picture of God's character. Jesus came to reveal God's character to us; this was the whole purpose of His mission. The reason He did this was to set us right with God:

quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.

Setting us right with God fixes all our problems. Nothing more for us than this needs to be done. The only way to do this was for God to reveal His character to us, which is just what He did, at infiniate cost.

Posted By: myarsman

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/06/05 05:17 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Back to your original question, regarding what causes unbelief, I would say originally, unbelief arose out of Eve's choice to believe the serpent's lies. Then sin itself fostered a false image of God's character, which led the first pair to hide from God, being afraid of Him and ashamed. So the root problem of unbelief is an incorrect view of God's character. This false view is corrected when we see the truth about God, as revealed in His Son.

Let's take a closer look at the Biblical account given of the "Fall of Man".

God places the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil"(TKGOE) in the Garden of Eden. He commands man to not eat of the fruit of this tree, for if he does, he will surely die.

Now let's pretend for a moment that we are Adam and we have just heard this serious warning.

What thoughts would pass through your mind?

My first thought would be ....."What is death?"

At that point in time, none of God's creation had ever experienced death, so how would man be able to comprehend what it is?

The only way that any "created being" could understand what "death" is is for a "created being" to experience "death".

So now we have a quandary.....God warns that death will be the consequence of disobedience and yet none of his creation could comprehend how severe this consequence would be.

Example: Let's say that I tell my little four-year-old daughter to not put her hand on the stove or else she will get burned. She has never experienced a burn before, nor has she witnessed anyone else being burned. She is completely incapable of comprehending what it means to be burned.

This is the way that it was with Adam and Eve. The only way that they could have fully comprehended "death" would have been for one or both of them to experience it or to witness another "created being" experiencing "death".

So here we have the first tangible ingredient that helped lead first Eve and then Adam into unbelief...... There was no "proof/evidence" available to them to support God's claim that they would die if they disobeyed. They could only take God at His Word, that the consequence for disobedience is severe.

Now we come to the temptation......

The Bible states that the Serpent "was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made"

(Now we are not told what this "subtilness" that the serpent possessed entailed, but we should be able to assume that this animal was not as intelligent as man, because man was created in the "image of God" while the other creatures were not.)

This serpent enters into a conversation with Eve.

(This must have been something of a shock to Eve to discover that a serpent could reason and talk as a human being.)

As Eve and the serpent converse, the serpent asks a "leading question"......."Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

Eve responds that God has given them permission to eat of the fruit of all the trees in the Garden, except for one, the tree that is in the "middle of the garden"(TKGOE). She states that if they eat of the fruit, or even touch it, they will surely die.

(It may be of interest to note that the Biblical record shows that the command to not eat of the TKGOE was given only to Adam prior to the creation of Eve. Therefore it may be concluded that Eve had heard of this warning indirectly thru Adam. Also, it is interesting to note that Eve states that they are not to touch the TKGOE, which is not included in the original warning given by God.)

Now we come to a very important point......

The serpent responds to Eve by stating; "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Now here are some questions.....

Was this statement made by the serpent True or False?

Did Eve then Adam suffer "death" as a direct result of their eating of the fruit of the TKGOE?

Also.......

After eating the fruit, did they become "like God, knowing good from evil"? See Genesis 3:22

The Biblical record goes on to state that Eve was somehow able to determine that the fruit was good for food, or that it wasn't poisonous.

Here is the real kicker!

The temptation had an added attractiveness in that the serpent claimed that by eating of the fruit, Eve would become "like God".

Now let's look at this a little closer to see if there is any evidence that Eve and Adam could see that would lead them to believe that what the serpent said was true?

How about a talking serpent? (That would be pretty convincing evidence to me.)

So now we have several possible ingredients that would lead man to "unbelief".

Lack of evidence that there is really a "Death" that can be experienced by a "created being" and the observance of a "created being" becoming greater than its original creation.

Yes, God's character may have been brought into question, but that was secondary in nature. It was not the primary element involved in the Great Controversy that was developing.

Do you follow me thus far?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/06/05 06:36 AM

quote:
PP 39, 40

In great mercy, according to His divine character, God bore long with Lucifer. The spirit of discontent and disaffection had never before been known in heaven. It was a new element, strange, mysterious, unaccountable. Lucifer himself had not at first been acquainted with the real nature of his feelings; for a time he had feared to express the workings and imaginings of his mind; yet he did not dismiss them. He did not see whither he was drifting. But such efforts as infinite love and wisdom only could devise, were made to convince him of his error. His disaffection was proved to be without cause, and he was made to see what would be the result of persisting in revolt.

Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong. He saw that "the Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works" (Psalm 145:17); that the divine statutes are just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels. He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had left his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office.

The time had come for a final decision; he must fully yield to the divine sovereignty or place himself in open rebellion. He nearly reached the decision to return, but pride forbade him. It was too great a sacrifice for one who had been so highly honored to confess that he had been in error, that his imaginings were false, and to yield to the authority which he had been working to prove unjust. {PP 39.1}

A compassionate Creator, in yearning pity for Lucifer and his followers, was seeking to draw them back from the abyss of ruin into which they were about to plunge. But His mercy was misinterpreted. Lucifer pointed to the long-suffering of God as an evidence of his own superiority, an indication that the King of the universe would yet accede to his terms. If the angels would stand firmly with him, he declared, they could yet gain all that they desired. He persistently defended his own course, and fully committed himself to the great controversy against his Maker.

Thus it was that Lucifer, "the light bearer," the sharer of God's glory, the attendant of His throne, by transgression became Satan, "the adversary" of God and holy beings and the destroyer of those whom Heaven had committed to his guidance and guardianship. {PP 39.2}

Tom, where in this quote does Sister White say Satan "sinned" before God offered to restore him?

You are arguing that it is obvious Satan sinned because God offered to pardon him, and I am arguing that it is obvious he hadn't sinned because God was willing to restore him without an atoning sacrifice. "... without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb 9:22)

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/07/05 11:47 PM

MM: Tom, where in this quote does Sister White say Satan "sinned" before God offered to restore him?

You are arguing that it is obvious Satan sinned because God offered to pardon him, and I am arguing that it is obvious he hadn't sinned because God was willing to restore him without an atoning sacrifice. "... without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb 9:22)

Tom: I didn't say it said in the quote you cited that Satan had sinned. I said we could infer that Satan sinned from this quote:

quote:
Leaving his place in the immediate presence of God, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. Working with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealing his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God, he endeavored to excite dissatisfaction concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that they imposed an unnecessary restraint. Since their natures were holy, he urged that the angels should obey the dictates of their own will. He sought to create sympathy for himself, by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ. He claimed that in aspiring to greater power and honor he was not aiming at self-exaltation, but was seeking to secure liberty for all the inhabitants of Heaven, that by this means they might attain to a higher state of existence. {GC88 495.2}

Consider what Satan did:

1)He diffused a spirit of discontent among the angels.
2)He concealed his real purpose under a false guise.
3)He sought to create sympathy for himself.
4)He lied as to his real purpose (claiming it was not for self-exaltation).

So here we see that not only was Satan sinning, but he was knowingly sinning. If he didn't know what he were doing, he wouldn't have concealed his real purpose under a false guise. He would have openly voiced his discontent. His whole purpose was self-exaltation, and he resorted to lying, misrepresentations, and concealing his purposes.

God offered "again and again" to "pardon" Satan.
"Pardon" means "forgiveness" or "a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense."

I issued the following challenge:

quote:
I challenge you to find ONE TIME in all the 100,000+ pages of the Spirit of Prophesy where she uses the word "pardon" in the context of repentance where it is not referring to sin.

From your lack of response, I assume you concede that pardon, in the context of forgiveness, does imply that sin had been committed.

Satan had repeatedly and knowingly sinned, but refused the offered pardon, again and again. This shows that sin can be pardoned, in some cases, without the shedding of blood. Yet for man, the pardon of sin did require the shedding of blood. Why?

What could God forgive Satan without any blood being involved, but not forgive man? Do you think it is because of some difference in God? or some difference in those who had sinned (Satan/man)? Which makes more sense?

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/07/05 11:56 PM

Bob, I followed most of what you wrote, except for the idea that the serpent was less intelligent than man. The animal could not have talked in and of itself, so it must have been being used by some other being (e.g. Satan), which could just as well have been more intelligent than man.

Also, I think the primary issue which led to Eve's sin was a lack of trust in God. Had she trusted God, when the serpent suggested that God was withholding something from her which would be good for her, she would have responded something like "No, God is not like that. He would not withhold something from me which is good for me." and refused to eat. It was because Eve doubted God that she took the forbidden fruit, and the impact of the action (and Adam's) is seen in their running from God and hiding when He approached them. Their doubt of God grew, and becamse ingrained in our psyche.

The big problem of sin is in our mind. We do not understand the truth about God. Christ came that we might see what God is really like, so our sin-damaged minds could be healed. Christ came to effect a reconciliation between God and man.

Posted By: myarsman

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/08/05 01:42 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Bob, I followed most of what you wrote, except for the idea that the serpent was less intelligent than man. The animal could not have talked in and of itself, so it must have been being used by some other being (e.g. Satan), which could just as well have been more intelligent than man..........Also, I think the primary issue which led to Eve's sin was a lack of trust in God.

I would agree that the serpent was incapable of speaking and that it was probably a medium for Satan.

I agree that she did not trust God. The very important point that I am attempting to present is "why?" she did not trust Him. The evidence that the serpent was presenting to her was more convincing than the evidence that God had presented to her.

Point #1:

God said, "If you eat the fruit you will die."

The serpent said, "If you eat the fruit, you will NOT die."

Eve ate the fruit and she did NOT die.

It would appear that the evidence would validate what the serpent said.

Point #2:

The serpent said, "If you eat this fruit, you will become like God, knowing good and evil."

After Eve and Adam had eaten the fruit, God admitted that they had become "like us, knowing good from evil."

Yes, Eve doubted/did not trust God.

Why....Because there was insufficient evidence available to her so that she could comprehend the truth that He was telling her.

Point #3:

Satan was able to tempt Eve with the exact temptation that he had yielded to. He believed that it was possible to ascend to a level of "Godliness" and he convinced her that she, too, could ascend to that level.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/08/05 02:16 AM

Tom, I didn't say you said my quote said Satan had sinned. I asked you if it did? You have yet to answer my question. You seem to believe your quote says Satan sinned. But it doesn't. My quote is more complete than yours. It stands to reason, therefore, that we should consider the one that provides the greatest amount of detail. Besides, our quotes do not contradict one another.

You also seem convinced that God cannot offer pardon unless someone has sinned. You agree that Eve did not sin until she ate the forbidden fruit, even though she was guilty of doubting God's word way before she sinned, but you seem eager to believe Lucifer was guilty of sin before he committed himself to open rebellion.

The Bible clearly says that there is no remission for sins without the shedding of blood, and yet you seem convinced that it is possible for God to pardon sin without blood. I'm not as willing to disregard the word of God in order to believe Satan sinned and that God was willing to restore him without blood. Nor am I willing to base an entire theology as to why Jesus had to die on such a tenuous premise.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/08/05 06:41 AM

MM: Tom, I didn't say you said my quote said Satan had sinned. I asked you if it did? You have yet to answer my question.

Tom: You want to know if the quote you cited said that Satan sinned? What difference would it make. I found clear evidence in another place that he did. I'm sure there are many places where Sister White wrote things about Satan without stating that he sinned. She certainly didn't say he didn't sin there, and since we can see that he did sin from the other quote, that should be enough.

MM: You seem to believe your quote says Satan sinned. But it doesn't.

Tom: Sure it does. It even lists the sins, which I pointed out to you. Unless you think misrepresenting God's character, acting secretly and deviously to exalt yourself by telling lies is not sinning. Plus she points out that God offered to pardon him if he repented, which anyone ought to be able to recognize as evidence of sin. I can only think of one reason why a person wouldn't see this.

MM: My quote is more complete than yours. It stands to reason, therefore, that we should consider the one that provides the greatest amount of detail. Besides, our quotes do not contradict one another.

Tom: This is silly reasoning. The quotes cover different things. Just like in the Gospels, if one of the Gospels covers an event in more detail than another, yet the other presents some item of detail which the one with the greater detail didn't cover, we don't just throw it out, do we, and say it never happened?

MM: You also seem convinced that God cannot offer pardon unless someone has sinned.

Tom: God offered pardon on the condition of repentance. Both of these facts indicate Satan sinned. The fact that "again and again" God offered pardon indicates that Satan sinned knowingly and repeatedly. Otherwise it would not have been necessary for God to keep offereing pardon over and over again.

MM: You agree that Eve did not sin until she ate the forbidden fruit, even though she was guilty of doubting God's word way before she sinned, but you seem eager to believe Lucifer was guilty of sin before he committed himself to open rebellion.

Tom: Satan committed the unpardonable sin when he placed himself in open rebellion in the full knowledge of who God was and that he (Satan) was wrong. Your points here actually argue against your position, because Eve never placed herself in open rebellion against God, yet she sinned. This shows it is possible to be guilty of sin without committing oneself to open rebellion.

MM: The Bible clearly says that there is no remission for sins without the shedding of blood, and yet you seem convinced that it is possible for God to pardon sin without blood.

Tom: The Bible is talking about humans. For humans there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. Interestingly, for Satan there was, however. Why do you suppose these cases are different?

MM: I'm not as willing to disregard the word of God in order to believe Satan sinned and that God was willing to restore him without blood.

Tom: You don't need to. The Bible doesn't address the question. However, the Spirit of Prophesy does, and if you wanted to, you could regard that message.

MM: Nor am I willing to base an entire theology as to why Jesus had to die on such a tenuous premise.

Tom: This statement really doesn't make sense, because you have already stated that you agree with all the reasons I have given as to why Christ had to die. The bone of contention is not what I believe, but what you believe. That is, you accept the reasons I give, but just don't think they are sufficient. You think in addition to what the cross reveals, which heals us and motivates us (which you agree with), it was also necessary for God's wrath to be satisfied and for a debt to be paid in order that God could forgive us. So I am not giving any reasons for why Christ had to die based on the statement indicating Satan sinned.

My argument is that if the reason blood had to be shed was to make it possible for God to pardon man, then why wasn't it necessary for blood to be shed in order to pardon Satan? This seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me, and one for which I have not received an answer.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/08/05 06:44 AM

Bob, the reason you are giving would imply God was at fault, it seems to me. Personally I would say there was no reason for Eve to doubt God. The Bible says she was deceived, which would imply there wasn't a reason for her to doubt God, it seems to me.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/08/05 07:23 PM

quote:
What difference would it make… Sure it does. It even lists the sins, which I pointed out to you.

It makes a difference to me. Please provide a quote where Sister White referred to Lucifer’s activities, before God offered to restore him, as sins. I realize you don’t think it matters, but if you’re going to base an entire doctrine on it then it would be nice to substantiate it.

quote:
The quotes cover different things.

Do they? Show me. What is so different about the two quotes?

quote:
Satan committed the unpardonable sin when he placed himself in open rebellion in the full knowledge of who God was and that he (Satan) was wrong.

I agree. But not before. Lucifer did not sin. But when Lucifer became Satan he was guilty of sinning. Neither Lucifer nor Eve was guilty of sinning before they committed themselves to open rebellion. Questioning God’s law and authority does not, in and of itself, constitute a sin, at least not until it turns into open rebellion. God implores us, “Come now, and let us reason together.”

quote:
The Bible is talking about humans. For humans there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood… The Bible doesn't address the question.

Okay, so whatever we read in the SOP is open to private interpretation? That doesn’t sound safe. Are you absolutely sure the Bible doesn’t say anything about whether or not the same principles that apply to us apply to other FMAs? Does God have one standard for us and another one for angels?

quote:
My argument is that if the reason blood had to be shed was to make it possible for God to pardon man, then why wasn't it necessary for blood to be shed in order to pardon Satan? This seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me, and one for which I have not received an answer.

But your question assumes something that I totally disagree with. So, I have answered your question - God cannot pardon sin without blood. Just because you believe this principle truth didn't apply to Lucifer before he committed himself to open rebellion doesn't make it so.

Again, Justice demands that the death penalty be executed. Why? Was it only to demonstrate God's self-sacrificing love? Or, does it mean more? What penalty did Jesus suffer and satisfy?

“Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon.” {1SM 340.1}

“Jesus suffered the extreme penalty of the law for our transgression, and justice was fully satisfied… Its demands have been met, its authority maintained… Was the penalty remitted because He was the Son of God? Were the vials of wrath withheld from Him who was made sin for us? Without abatement the penalty fell upon our divine-human Substitute.” {HP 15.5}

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/08/05 10:52 PM

Old Tom:What difference would it make… Sure it does. It even lists the sins, which I pointed out to you.

MM:It makes a difference to me. Please provide a quote where Sister White referred to Lucifer’s activities, before God offered to restore him, as sins. I realize you don’t think it matters, but if you’re going to base an entire doctrine on it then it would be nice to substantiate it.

Tom: I've substantiated this several time. First of all, she listed the sins. They include misreprenting God's character, lying, being devious and secretive. Surely you know these things are sins.

Secondly she tells us God offered to pardon Satan "again and again." This shows that not only did Satan sin, but he did so knowingly, because he was offered pardon repeatedly. He might have been ignorant the first time, but he wasn't after he was offered it "again", let along "again and again."

Thirdly she tells us that the condition of pardon was submission and "repentance". Repentance and pardon are only necessary in the case of sin.

Old Tom: The quotes cover different things.

MM:Do they? Show me. What is so different about the two quotes?

Tom: If your quote is different than mine, then it is talking about something else. Right? How could that not be the case? If is the same as mine, then it agrees with it, so you have two quotes saying what my quote says. You were the one maintaining your quote was different. If you want to assert they are the same, that's fine. Then we would have two quotes establishing that Satan sinned.

Old Tom: Satan committed the unpardonable sin when he placed himself in open rebellion in the full knowledge of who God was and that he (Satan) was wrong.

MM: I agree. But not before. Lucifer did not sin.

Tom: Sure he did. Just not unpardonably. That he sinned is clear for the reasons I gave above.

MM: But when Lucifer became Satan he was guilty of sinning.

Tom: Unpardonably sinning that should be.

MM: Neither Lucifer nor Eve was guilty of sinning before they committed themselves to open rebellion.

Tom: Eve never did sin unpardonably. That was just Satan. They both sinned, but only one unpardonably. Satan would have been pardoned on the condition of submission and respentance.

MM: Questioning God’s law and authority does not, in and of itself, constitute a sin, at least not until it turns into open rebellion.

Tom: No, this is incorrect. One can sin without placing oneself in open rebellion.

Old Tom:God implores us, “Come now, and let us reason together.”

The Bible is talking about humans. For humans there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood… The Bible doesn't address the question.

MM: Okay, so whatever we read in the SOP is open to private interpretation?

Tom: I see elipses here, which makes me suspicious. Why don't you quote what I wrote without elipses, and then we can discuss it.

MM: That doesn’t sound safe. Are you absolutely sure the Bible doesn’t say anything about whether or not the same principles that apply to us apply to other FMAs? Does God have one standard for us and another one for angels?

Tom: God has the same stand for all FMA's, but the circumstances of FMA's differ. For Satan, who sinned in the full light of knowing God's character, nothing more could be done. For man, who did not know the height and depth and length and breadth of God's love, something could be done. God could make Himself known to man, which is just what He did. It was the circumstances of man which led to God's taking the actions He did, not some arbitrary requirement on God's part.

Old Tom: My argument is that if the reason blood had to be shed was to make it possible for God to pardon man, then why wasn't it necessary for blood to be shed in order to pardon Satan? This seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me, and one for which I have not received an answer.

MM: But your question assumes something that I totally disagree with.

Tom: How can you disagree with the assertion that God offered Satan pardon? Here's the statement:

quote:
Again and again he was offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission. (GC 495)

MM: So, I have answered your question - God cannot pardon sin without blood.

Tom: According to EGW He would have pardoned Satan on the condition of repentance and submission. Nothing about blood was mentioned.

MM: Just because you believe this principle truth didn't apply to Lucifer before he committed himself to open rebellion doesn't make it so.

Tom: That's true, but the fact that the Spirit of Prophesy states that God offered Satan pardon on the condition of repentance and submission does make it so.

MM: Again, Justice demands that the death penalty be executed. Why? Was it only to demonstrate God's self-sacrificing love? Or, does it mean more? What penalty did Jesus suffer and satisfy?

Tom: Well, let's consider Satan. He sinned, yet was offered pardon. Yet there was no blood involved. Why? I believe the answer is given here:

quote:
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 difference in circumstances between Satan and man had to do with the light they had regarding God's character. According to the Spirit of Prophesy, the whole purpose of Christ's mission was to reveal God's character in order to set man right with God, so from that I surmise that Christ's death was involved with that:

quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. (ST 1/20/90)

MM:
“Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon.” {1SM 340.1}

“Jesus suffered the extreme penalty of the law for our transgression, and justice was fully satisfied… Its demands have been met, its authority maintained… Was the penalty remitted because He was the Son of God? Were the vials of wrath withheld from Him who was made sin for us? Without abatement the penalty fell upon our divine-human Substitute.” {HP 15.5}

Tom: Certainly it was necessary for Christ to die. But why? The answer given by Scripture was to bring us to God:

quote:
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.(1 Pet. 3:18)

Interesting, this is the same reason EGW gives (see the above quote from ST 1/20/90). So I surmise that justice is satisfies when man is brought back to God. In fact, if we consider what "justice" means from a Scriptural perspective, we see that it means just this -- to bring back into harmony that which off kilter. God's way of doing this is by mercy and compassion.

quote:
"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.(Zech 7:9)

quote:
And therefore the Lord [earnestly] waits [expecting, looking, and longing] to be gracious to you; and therefore He lifts Himself up, that He may have mercy on you and show loving-kindness to you. For the Lord is a God of justice. (Isa. 30:18)

The justice which needed to be satisfied was not an arbitrary required which God needed, or else God could not have offered Satan pardon on the condition of repentance without death. But God was able to do that, because Satan already knew God's character. Man did not, so God revealed it to man, so that he could be set right with Him. Simple and elegant.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/09/05 01:55 AM

quote:
1) I've substantiated this several time.

2) One can sin without placing oneself in open rebellion.

3) The justice which needed to be satisfied was not an arbitrary required which God needed, or else God could not have offered Satan pardon on the condition of repentance without death.

I am not at all convinced. You have yet to post a quote where she herself said, without any interpretive help from you, that Lucifer was guilty of sinning before he became Satan, that is, before he committed himself to open rebellion. Nor have you quoted anything that says his sin could have been forgiven or pardoned without blood.

Also, why don’t you think Eve sinned when she doubted God’s word before she ate the fruit? She even misrepresented God’s character by adding to His word. Lucifer was in the same position before he committed himself to open rebellion.

I agree with you that after Eve and Satan were guilty of sinning, that one was offered probation and the other was not, and for the same reasons you named.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/09/05 02:38 AM

Old Tom: 1) I've substantiated this several time.

2) One can sin without placing oneself in open rebellion.

3) The justice which needed to be satisfied was not an arbitrary required which God needed, or else God could not have offered Satan pardon on the condition of repentance without death.

MM: I am not at all convinced.

Tom: That's not surprising.

MM: You have yet to post a quote where she herself said, without any interpretive help from you, that Lucifer was guilty of sinning before he became Satan, that is, before he committed himself to open rebellion.

Tom: She said, without any interpretive help from me, that "again and again" God offered Satan pardon on the condition of repentence and submission. She also listed, without any help from me, what Satan's sins were, which included lying in order to exalt himself. Plus the fact that God offered this pardon "again and again" indicates that Satan knew he was doing wrong.

MM: Nor have you quoted anything that says his sin could have been forgiven or pardoned without blood.

Tom: All that was mentioned was "repentance and submission." No blood was mentioned. Blood would not have availed for Satan, because he already knew God's character.

MM: Also, why don’t you think Eve sinned when she doubted God’s word before she ate the fruit? She even misrepresented God’s character by adding to His word. Lucifer was in the same position before he committed himself to open rebellion.

Tom: This is a rediculous comparison. Eve did not intentionally add a word to God's statement for the purpose of mispresenting God's character. Satan was wilfully misrepresenting God's character for the express purpose of exalting himself. Eve wasn't doing anything remotely like that.

As to why Eve didn't sin before eating of the fruit, the command was to not eat of the fruit. Eve was on the road to sinning when she starting thinking about it, but there wasn't an actual sin committed until she made the decision to eat.

MM: I agree with you that after Eve and Satan were guilty of sinning, that one was offered probation and the other was not, and for the same reasons you named.

Tom: Satan was offered pardon, on the condition of repentance and submission.

You have a funny way of saying you agree with things which do not represent what other people are saying. That's not pleasant for the people reading what you've written.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/10/05 12:13 AM

quote:
She also listed, without any help from me, what Satan's sins were, which included lying in order to exalt himself.

She never once referred to them as sins.

quote:
This is a rediculous comparison.

Do you speak like that to Jesus? “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (Mat 25:40) Are you getting tired of me asking you to watch your words? Well, consider these words. "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." (Col 4:6) "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Mat 12:37)

quote:
Satan was offered pardon, on the condition of repentance and submission.

God didn’t offer Satan pardon, instead He offered Lucifer pardon.

quote:
No blood was mentioned. Blood would not have availed for Satan, because he already knew God's character.

You seem to be taking a lot of liberties here. Where does it say in the Bible or the SOP that God offered to pardon Lucifer’s sin, if he repented, without blood? I’m not asking for your logical deductions, I’m asking for an inspired statement that doesn’t require human reasoning.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/10/05 01:24 AM

Old Tom: She also listed, without any help from me, what Satan's sins were, which included lying in order to exalt himself.

MM: She never once referred to them as sins.

Tom: Do you think lying is a sin? Do you think intentionally misrepresenting God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation is a sin?

Old Tom: This is a rediculous comparison.

MM: Do you speak like that to Jesus? “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (Mat 25:40) Are you getting tired of me asking you to watch your words? Well, consider these words. "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." (Col 4:6) "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Mat 12:37)

Tom: Here's what you wrote:

quote:
MM: Also, why don’t you think Eve sinned when she doubted God’s word before she ate the fruit? She even misrepresented God’s character by adding to His word. Lucifer was in the same position before he committed himself to open rebellion.

You don't like "absurd" and "rediculous" is bad. How about "silly"? Perhaps "illogical"? "unreasonable". Let's go with that. I apologize for the "rediculous" comment. I will replace it with "this is an unreasonable comparison". I should have used a less pejorative word. Please accept my apology. If you like one of the other words better, please let me know. Also let me know if you object to "unreasonable." It is not my intention to upset you, but merely to call attention to the nature of the comparison, which is like comparing a mountain to a molehill.

I will not tire of you calling my attention to words that are too sharp. That's a very reasonable thing for you to do, and I'll keep trying to strike the right balance.

Old Tom: Satan was offered pardon, on the condition of repentance and submission.

MM: God didn’t offer Satan pardon, instead He offered Lucifer pardon.

Tom: He offered the being formally known as Lucifer pardon. He offered the pardon to the same being. The being had sinned repeatedly, and so was offered pardon repeatedly ("again and again").

Old Tom: No blood was mentioned. Blood would not have availed for Satan, because he already knew God's character.

MM: You seem to be taking a lot of liberties here. Where does it say in the Bible or the SOP that God offered to pardon Lucifer’s sin, if he repented, without blood? I’m not asking for your logical deductions, I’m asking for an inspired statement that doesn’t require human reasoning.

Tom: I quoted the statement. Satan was offered pardon "again and again" under the condition of "repentance and submission". It is you who would be taken liberties if you were to add the idea the blood was required, since the stated condition was "repentance and submission." I don't need to supply a quote for something which isn't mentioned. That's an unreasonable request.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/10/05 11:48 AM

Hello folks, I have been away for some time.

I think it would be meaningful if MM would clarify what defines “sin” in his mind.

At what point does “wrong” become “sin”?
What is required before “bearing false witness” would be “sin”?
Why?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/11/05 04:48 AM

quote:
If you like one of the other words better, please let me know.

How about just sticking with the topic without any negative comments? They do not add to the discussion in the least, and at worst they make it unpleasant. Try sticking to the topic and see what you think. It you discover you cannot make your point without making those types of comments then we can discuss our options at that time. Deal?

quote:
Do you think lying is a sin? Do you think intentionally misrepresenting God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation is a sin?

Yes. But if you are asking if I think Lucifer sinned before God offered to restore him, then, no, I do not believe that at all. Nowhere does Sister White say so.

quote:
He offered the pardon to the same being.

According to this quote Lucifer and Satan were essentially two different beings. God created Lucifer, but Lucifer created Satan.

"He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had left his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office. The time had come for a final decision; he must fully yield to the divine sovereignty or place himself in open rebellion. He nearly reached the decision to return, but pride forbade him. {PP 39.1}

"He persistently defended his own course, and fully committed himself to the great controversy against his Maker. Thus it was that Lucifer, "the light bearer," the sharer of God's glory, the attendant of His throne, by transgression became Satan, "the adversary" of God and holy beings and the destroyer of those whom Heaven had committed to his guidance and guardianship. {PP 39.2}

quote:
It is you who would be taken liberties if you were to add the idea the blood was required, since the stated condition was "repentance and submission."

Actually, I agree with you that blood was not required, but for different reasons. You believe it was because God did not require blood to atone for Satan’s sin since he sinned with full knowledge of God’s love and character. I believe blood was not required because Lucifer wasn’t guilty of sinning.

The Bible says, “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb 9:22) But Tom says, “This is true for humans but not for Satan in heaven.” Do you really expect anyone to take your word above the word of God?

Matthew
26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark
1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke
24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Romans
3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

7BC 932
Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. To many it has been a mystery why so many sacrificial offerings were required in the old dispensation, why so many bleeding victims were led to the altar. But the great truth that was to be kept before men, and imprinted upon mind and heart, was this, "Without shedding of blood is no remission." In every bleeding sacrifice was typified "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." {7BC 932.8}

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/11/05 05:15 AM

John, welcome back. I’m going to repost something I posted earlier, only this time I’m quite sure you will not labeled it “ridiculous” and “unreasonable” as it was termed earlier.

quote:
Also, why don’t you think Eve sinned when she doubted God’s word before she ate the fruit? She even misrepresented God’s character by adding to His word. Lucifer was in the same position before he committed himself to open rebellion.

Eve believed, before she actually ate the forbidden fruit, before she actually sinned, that God was unjust. That is exactly what Lucifer believed before he sinned. Neither Eve nor Lucifer was guilty of sinning when they believed God was unjust. It was not until they actually sinned that they became guilty of sinning. Eve was also guilty of coveting or looking "with longing desire" for something that was forbidden, an obvious violation of the tenth commandment.

quote:
And the serpent answered Eve that the command of God, forbidding them to eat of the tree of knowledge, was given to keep them in such a state of subordination that they should not obtain knowledge, which was power. He assured her that the fruit of this tree was desirable above every other tree in the garden to make them wise, and to exalt them equal with God. He has, said the serpent, refused you the fruit of that tree which, of all the trees, is the most desirable for its delicious flavor and exhilarating influence. {Con 13.3}

Eve thought that the serpent's discourse was very wise, and that the prohibition of God was unjust. She looked with longing desire upon the tree laden with fruit which appeared very delicious. The serpent was eating it with apparent delight. She longed for this fruit above every other variety which God had given her a perfect right to use. {Con 14.1}

Eve had overstated the words of God's command. He had said to Adam and Eve, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." In Eve's controversy with the serpent, she added "Neither shall ye touch it." {Con 14.2}

What is sin? Apparently sinless beings can view God as "unjust" and covet something unlawful and not be guilty of sinning. Of course, the same thing cannot be said of sinful beings.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/11/05 05:38 AM

Old Tom:If you like one of the other words better, please let me know.

MM: How about just sticking with the topic without any negative comments? They do not add to the discussion in the least, and at worst they make it unpleasant. Try sticking to the topic and see what you think. It you discover you cannot make your point without making those types of comments then we can discuss our options at that time. Deal?

Tom: If you make a falacious argument I should be able to point that out. However, I should do so in a way that does not offend you, if possible. I do not with to personally offend you, only point out the unreasonbleness of the argument. One can make a foolish argument without being foolish, for example. The comment is attached to the argument, not to you personally.

Old Tom: Do you think lying is a sin? Do you think intentionally misrepresenting God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation is a sin?

MM: Yes. But if you are asking if I think Lucifer sinned before God offered to restore him, then, no, I do not believe that at all. Nowhere does Sister White say so.

Tom: You're contradicting yourself here because Sister White does say that Lucifer/Satan was intentionally misrepresenting God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation, which you agree is sin.

Old Tom: He offered the pardon to the same being.

MM: According to this quote Lucifer and Satan were essentially two different beings. God created Lucifer, but Lucifer created Satan.

"He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had left his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office. The time had come for a final decision; he must fully yield to the divine sovereignty or place himself in open rebellion. He nearly reached the decision to return, but pride forbade him. {PP 39.1}

"He persistently defended his own course, and fully committed himself to the great controversy against his Maker. Thus it was that Lucifer, "the light bearer," the sharer of God's glory, the attendant of His throne, by transgression became Satan, "the adversary" of God and holy beings and the destroyer of those whom Heaven had committed to his guidance and guardianship. {PP 39.2}

Tom: I agree with this, but Lucifer did not become Satan because of a single act. It was a long drawn out process that brought him to the point of committing the unpardonable sin. It was not a misstep or single act of rebellion that led to Lucifer's being lost, but willful, persistent, prolonged rebellion over a long period of time.

Old Tom: It is you who would be taken liberties if you were to add the idea the blood was required, since the stated condition was "repentance and submission."

MM: Actually, I agree with you that blood was not required, but for different reasons. You believe it was because God did not require blood to atone for Satan’s sin since he sinned with full knowledge of God’s love and character.

Tom: No, this isn't quite it. What Sister White said is that because Satan persisted in his course with the full knowledge of God's character, there was nothing more which could be done for him. The issue was not one of God not requiring blood for some reason, but of blood not availing. God doesn't require blood; we do. God is already right. We are the ones who need to be set right.

MM: I believe blood was not required because Lucifer wasn’t guilty of sinning.

Tom: But he misrepresented God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation, which you agree is sin. So he was guilty of sinning. Plus he was offered pardon "again and again," so he was no only guilty of sinning, but of repeatedly sinning, and not just repeatedly but knowingly.

MM: The Bible says, “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb 9:22) But Tom says, “This is true for humans but not for Satan in heaven.” Do you really expect anyone to take your word above the word of God?

Tom: The Bible was addressing humans. MM, do you ever think of asking why questions? Like why is there no remission of sin without the shedding of blodd? There's not a verse in all of Scripture which states it is to satisfy some requirement of God's, or to appease His wrath, or to enable Him to forgive us. The reasons which are given deal with our being reconciled to God.

Yes, the shedding of blood was a terrible necessity, because this was the only way we could be brought to God.

That is wasn't required for angels is evident from
Sister White wrote. God would have pardoned Lucifer/Satan had he repented. There was no blood involved, so that blood is required for the remission of sin is not an arbitrary requirement.

MM: Matthew
26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark
1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke
24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Romans
3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

7BC 932
Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. To many it has been a mystery why so many sacrificial offerings were required in the old dispensation, why so many bleeding victims were led to the altar. But the great truth that was to be kept before men, and imprinted upon mind and heart, was this, "Without shedding of blood is no remission." In every bleeding sacrifice was typified "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." {7BC 932.8}

Tom: The word translated "remission" here is "a[fesiß" which means forgivenss or pardon. Now pardong and justification are one in the same (FW 103)

Given that "remssion" means "pardon" which is the same thing as justification, we can see that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin because without the shedding of blood there is no justification.

quote:
How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8.(DA 175, 176)

How are we saved? By beholding the Lamb of God, who love, shining from the cross, leads us to reprentance.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/11/05 03:19 PM

quote:
Eve believed, before she actually ate the forbidden fruit, before she actually sinned, that God was unjust. That is exactly what Lucifer believed before he sinned. Neither Eve nor Lucifer was guilty of sinning when they believed God was unjust. It was not until they actually sinned that they became guilty of sinning. Eve was also guilty of coveting or looking "with longing desire" for something that was forbidden, an obvious violation of the tenth commandment.

Thank you for giving some meaning to what you consider sin not to be. However, your statement of “It was not until they 'actually sinned' that they became guilty of sinning” does not define what 'actually sinned' means. I gather you mean "an outward action that transgresses a commandment".

quote:
What is sin? Apparently sinless beings can view God as "unjust" and covet something unlawful and not be guilty of sinning. Of course, the same thing cannot be said of sinful beings.

Again,MM this does not define sin, but your comment here is interesting. You have sinless beings (bodily?), doing sinful things spiritually, as not sinning, while sinful beings doing the same, as sinning.

I think that primarily the reason you say such things is because your preset ideas force you do so, and not because it makes any sense to you.

However I would like to address this later when you confirm what ‘actually sinning’ means.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/11/05 03:40 PM

MM, your point is that since forgiveness for sin requires shedding of blood, (shedding of blood being the reference point) therefore if blood needed not to be shed it could not be sin. But the point of this discussion is whether forgiveness required shedding of blood.

1) The way you use the phrase “without shedding of blood is no remission” is outside of the scriptural ‘preposition’ of it.

2) Scripture plainly states that forgiveness/remission of sins is by repentance, without sacrifice.

Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Luk 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

In fact the reason why the Priests, Pharisees and Sadducees did not go out to be baptized of John, is because, it would have put them out of business. You see those that repented and were baptized of John did not have to go and make an offering as by the law. It was the baptism of repentance that served that purpose. Moreover, the sacrifices which were by the law, could not effect that forgiveness in the minds of the comers thereto. Baptism of repentance could.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/11/05 07:13 PM

quote:
I think that primarily the reason you say such things is because your preset ideas force you do so, and not because it makes any sense to you.

I've noticed the same thing. I'm sure we're all guilty of this to some extent, but hopefully we're all open to truth, even if it doesn't jibe with our previous ideas.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/11/05 09:35 PM

quote:
If you make a falacious argument I should be able to point that out.

Again, if you discover you cannot make your point without making those types of comments then we can discuss our options at that time. Deal?

quote:
You're contradicting yourself here because Sister White does say that Lucifer/Satan was intentionally misrepresenting God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation, which you agree is sin.

We disagree on this point.

quote:
I agree with this, but Lucifer did not become Satan because of a single act.

True, but the very second he crossed the line he was cast out of heaven. As you have so eloquently pointed out, the moment Lucifer crossed the line there was nothing more God could to woo and win him back. Love had nothing more to offer.

quote:
The issue was not one of God not requiring blood for some reason, but of blood not availing.

Blood wasn’t necessary before God offered to restore Lucifer because he hadn’t crossed the line yet, and, you’re right, blood wouldn’t have done any good after Lucifer became Satan because love had nothing more to offer him.

quote:
There's not a verse in all of Scripture which states it is to satisfy some requirement of God's, or to appease His wrath, or to enable Him to forgive us. The reasons which are given deal with our being reconciled to God.

If blood is not required to satisfy the demands of Justice (God), why, then, did God say, “Without shedding of blood is no remission”? And why did Sister White say, "Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon"? (1SM 340)

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/11/05 09:57 PM

John, when I wrote, “Neither Eve nor Lucifer was guilty of sinning when they believed God was unjust. It was not until they actually sinned that they became guilty of sinning”, I was referring to open rebellion. In the case of Eve, it was when she actually bit into the forbidden fruit. In the case of Lucifer, it was when he rejected God’s final call to repentance, when he committed himself to open rebellion.

quote:
I think that primarily the reason you say such things is because your preset ideas force you do so, and not because it makes any sense to you.

And, your point? What does what you think about what I think have anything to do with what we’re studying here? Why something makes sense to me doesn’t have anything to do with what we’re studying. Please, stick with the facts. Just present your case, and don’t bother trying to articulate why my ideas do not make sense to me. Thank you.

quote:
2) Scripture plainly states that forgiveness/remission of sins is by repentance, without sacrifice.

That’s not how I read it, John. "Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon.” (1SM 340)

As I see it, the blood of Jesus makes repentance possible and efficacious. “Repentance includes sorrow for sin and a turning away from it.” (SC 23) “Confession will not be acceptable to God without sincere repentance and reformation. There must be decided changes in the life; everything offensive to God must be put away.” (SC 39)

The blood of Jesus purchased for us the right of repentance.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/12/05 01:51 AM

Old Tom: If you make a falacious argument I should be able to point that out.

MM: Again, if you discover you cannot make your point without making those types of comments then we can discuss our options at that time. Deal?

Tom: I shouldn't be able to point out that a given argument is unreasonable or fallacious? Is this what you are saying?

I agree completely that I should not use language which is offensive to you. I don't wish to do this, and have asked for help in communicating in a way you find offensive. However, I cannot agree that this means I should not point out arguments which are in error.

Old Tom: You're contradicting yourself here because Sister White does say that Lucifer/Satan was intentionally misrepresenting God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation, which you agree is sin.

MM: We disagree on this point.

Tom: I asked if intentionally misrepresenting God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation was sin, and you said it was. So not you are disagreeing with yourself. I think you were correct before.

Old Tom: I agree with this, but Lucifer did not become Satan because of a single act.

MM: True, but the very second he crossed the line he was cast out of heaven.

Tom: That's simply not true. The Spirit of Prophesy points out that God bore long with Satan and tried many means to convince Satan of his error. She wrote we will be amazed at God's patience. The descriptions she gives do not jibe with your statement that the very second he crossed the line he was cast out of heaven.

MM: As you have so eloquently pointed out, the moment Lucifer crossed the line there was nothing more God could to woo and win him back. Love had nothing more to offer.

Tom: If by crossing the line you mean when Satan finally reached the point in his persistent rebellion and repeatedly and knowingly sinning while refusing God's many offers of pardon on the condition of repentance and forgiveness, then I agree.

Old Tom: The issue was not one of God not requiring blood for some reason, but of blood not availing.

MM: Blood wasn’t necessary before God offered to restore Lucifer because he hadn’t crossed the line yet, and, you’re right, blood wouldn’t have done any good after Lucifer became Satan because love had nothing more to offer him.

Tom: There's nothing magical in blood. It is not the literal blood that saves. The blood represents the life, and it is the life of Christ which saves. Satan already knew that life, but man did not. By a revelation of God's character, man could be brought back to God.

God was willing to do whatever necessary in order to save man, and to save Lucifer/Satan. God would have died for him if it would have done any good. It is because it wouldn't do any good that God didn't die for him. But God did offer to pardon him, "again and again"; and there was no blood involved.

Old Tom: There's not a verse in all of Scripture which states it is to satisfy some requirement of God's, or to appease His wrath, or to enable Him to forgive us. The reasons which are given deal with our being reconciled to God.

MM: If blood is not required to satisfy the demands of Justice (God), why, then, did God say, “Without shedding of blood is no remission”?

Tom: The statement "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin" does not address *why* the shedding of blood was necessary. That's the purpose of this thread. I gave a lengthly answer involving many Scriptures pointing out why. The why had to do with winning the Great Controversy, and bring us to God.

As I pointed out, there's not a verse in all of Scripture which states it is to satisfy some requirement of God's, or to appease His wrath, or to enable Him to forgive us. I take it you agree with this assertion of mine, since you didn't attempt to produce any.

MM: And why did Sister White say, "Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon"? (1SM 340)

Tom: This is unresponsive to my assertion, as it is not Scripture.

Regarding the Spirit of Prophesy statement I would say that what it does NOT mean is that God had an arbitrary requirement for blood in order to pardon us. This is evident by the fact that God was willing to pardon Lucifer/Satan without any blood being involved.

Justice demands obedience to the law, and that sin result in death. Christ accomplished both things. He perfectly obeyed the law, and when He was made to be sin for us, He died. It is certainly true that Christ died in our stead, and this is just.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/12/05 02:18 AM

quote:
As I see it, the blood of Jesus makes repentance possible and efficacious. “Repentance includes sorrow for sin and a turning away from it.” (SC 23) “Confession will not be acceptable to God without sincere repentance and reformation. There must be decided changes in the life; everything offensive to God must be put away.” (SC 39)

I agree with this wholeheartedly; it is what I and Tom have been saying all the time. We are the ones whose heart and mind needed changing, not God. Christ did not die to appease God; enable God to forgive us; but rather God gave his son, that we might be enabled to repent and receive his forgiveness.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/12/05 02:35 AM

quote:
And, your point? What does what you think about what I think have anything to do with what we’re studying here? Why something makes sense to me doesn’t have anything to do with what we’re studying.

MM, studying is an endeavor to understand. Understanding, by its very nature, makes sense. To simply assert statements; you yours and Tom his or I mine, is not study. Why something makes sense is what studying and understanding is about. That is why this topic has a "why" in its title.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/12/05 05:59 PM

quote:
I shouldn't be able to point out that a given argument is unreasonable or fallacious? Is this what you are saying?

However, I cannot agree that this means I should not point out arguments which are in error.

You are free to post whatever you want to, but if you continue to post offensive comments I will simply stop studying with you. If I post something that, in your opinion, you think is untrue or heresy, then I would prefer it if you would simply quote inspired statements that plainly say so, ones that do not rely on your private interpretation.

However, telling me that you think my comments or arguments are unreasonable or ridiculous is totally unacceptable behaviour, in my opinion. And I will not tolerate it. Not because I’m thin-skinned, which I am, but because it pollutes the atmosphere. MSDAOL should be a safe and friendly place for members and visitors to read and study.

quote:
That's simply not true.

We do not agree on this point.

quote:
This is evident by the fact that God was willing to pardon Lucifer/Satan without any blood being involved.

We do not agree on this point, either.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/13/05 06:51 AM

quote:
I think that primarily the reason you say such things is because your preset ideas force you do so, and not because it makes any sense to you.

In this case, John, you are telling me that I believe something that doesn’t make any sense to me. How do you know it doesn’t make any sense to me? Please keep these kinds of comments and opinions to yourself.

Eve believed, before she actually ate the forbidden fruit, before she actually sinned, that God was being “unjust”. That is exactly what Lucifer believed before he sinned. Neither Eve nor Lucifer was guilty of sinning when they believed God was being “unjust”. Before Lucifer became Satan, before he committed himself to open rebellion, the doubts he disseminated were, in the eyes of God, considered sinless. God also considered Eve sinless when she coveted, with “longing desire", something that was forbidden, an obvious violation of the tenth commandment.

How do you explain these facts?

quote:
Christ did not die to appease God; enable God to forgive us; but rather God gave his son, that we might be enabled to repent and receive his forgiveness.

I believe all of the above is true. There is an aspect about the wrath of God that needs appeasing. “The soul that sinneth it shall die an everlasting death--a death that will last forever, from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased.” (EW 51) It is my desire to understand in what sense punishment and the death penalty appeases the wrath of God, in what sense it satisfies the justice and vengeance an offended God. Check out this long list of quotes that describe this very thing:

"Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon.” (1SM 340)

“The heavy judgments that were to befall the impenitent, --war, exile, oppression, the loss of power and prestige among the nations,--all these were to come in order that those who would recognize in them the hand of an offended God might be led to repent.” (PK 309)

“How intense was the desire of the humanity of Christ to escape the displeasure of an offended God, how His soul longed for relief, is revealed in the words, "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done." (5BC 1103)

“As Jesus moved out of the Most Holy place, I heard the tinkling of the bells upon his garment, and as he left, a cloud of darkness covered the inhabitants of the earth. There was then no mediator between guilty man, and an offended God.” (1SG 198)

“The last message of mercy is now going forth. It is a token of the long-suffering and compassion of God. Come, is the invitation now given. Come, for all things are now ready. This is mercy's last call. Next will come the vengeance of an offended God.” (2T 225)

“They will meet with eternal loss in the end. They will lose the mansions Jesus has gone to prepare for those who love Him, and will lose that life which measures with the life of God. And this is not all. They must suffer the wrath of an offended God for having withheld from Him their service and given all their efforts to His worst enemy.” (2T 286)

“These dumb dogs that would not bark are the ones who feel the just vengeance of an offended God. Men, maidens, and little children all perish together.” (5T 211)

Jesus lived and died the perfect life and death to satisfy the requirements necessary to redeem us from the wrath of God, from the vengeance of God, and from the death penalty. For some reason, for reasons that make perfect sense to God and the holy angels, the life and death of Jesus was necessary to satisfy the demands of Justice. I cannot ignore the facts in the case, but neither can I understand them. So, I accept them by faith, and trust that God is love, and that whatever He is doing is holy, just, and good.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/12/05 11:15 PM

Old Tom: I shouldn't be able to point out that a given argument is unreasonable or fallacious? Is this what you are saying?

However, I cannot agree that this means I should not point out arguments which are in error.

MM: You are free to post whatever you want to, but if you continue to post offensive comments I will simply stop studying with you.

Tom: You consider a comment that points out an argument to be in error to be offensive?

MM:If I post something that, in your opinion, you think is untrue or heresy, then I would prefer it if you would simply quote inspired statements that plainly say so, ones that do not rely on your private interpretation.

Tom: I wasn't referring to statement which are in my opinion untrue or heresy. I was referring to statements you make using logic which is absurd, or unreasonable, or fallacious, or whatever an appropriate adjective would be.

MM: However, telling me that you think my comments or arguments are unreasonable or ridiculous is totally unacceptable behaviour, in my opinion. And I will not tolerate it. Not because I’m thin-skinned, which I am, but because it pollutes the atmosphere. MSDAOL should be a safe and friendly place for members and visitors to read and study.

Tom: I should be able to point out invalid arguments. This is not an unreasonable thing for me to be able to do. I am open to suggestions regarding how to do this.

Old Tom: That's simply not true.

MM: We do not agree on this point.

Old Tom: This is evident by the fact that God was willing to pardon Lucifer/Satan without any blood being involved.

MM: We do not agree on this point, either.

Tom:

quote:
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, 497)

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/13/05 02:31 AM

quote:
I should be able to point out invalid arguments. This is not an unreasonable thing for me to be able to do. I am open to suggestions regarding how to do this.

Whether an argument is invalid or not is a matter of opinion. I suggest that you stick with the facts rather than posting your opinion regarding positions you deem unfit or unworthy. In case you haven't noticed yet stating your opinion about my opinion is counterproductive. It basically stalls the study process. I find it insulting and condescending when you refer to the things I post as invalid or unreasonable. Simply post what you think is right. You can do this quite successfully without compromising your position.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/13/05 06:56 AM

MM: Whether an argument is invalid or not is a matter of opinion.

Tom: I disagree. Whether an argument is valid or not is not matter of opinion. It's something objective, not subjective. Arguments are subject to the rules of logic.

MM:I suggest that you stick with the facts rather than posting your opinion regarding positions you deem unfit or unworthy.

Tom: I have been dealing with facts. The rules of logic are facts. Arguments are invalid if the conclusions do not follow from their premises.

MM: In case you haven't noticed yet stating your opinion about my opinion is counterproductive.
It basically stalls the study process. I find it insulting and condescending when you refer to the things I post as invalid or unreasonable. Simply post what you think is right. You can do this quite successfully without compromising your position.

Tom: Are you suggesting I simply ignore it when you make invalid arguments as if you hadn't said anything?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/14/05 06:52 AM

quote:
MM: In case you haven't noticed yet stating your opinion about my opinion is counterproductive. It basically stalls the study process.

I find it insulting and condescending when you refer to the things I post as invalid or unreasonable.

Simply post what you think is right. You can do this quite successfully without compromising your position.

Tom: Are you suggesting I simply ignore it when you make invalid arguments as if you hadn't said anything?

What I am asking you to do is - Simply post what you think is right. You can do this quite successfully without compromising your position. You do not have to attack my position to prove your position. Just tell the truth and let the truth speak for itself. And then pray for me as if my life depends on it.

You are driving me away by attacking my position. Calling my views invalid, unreasonable, ridiculous, etc., isn't helping your case at all. Use your time and talent to present the truth in a winsome way, and that will do more to promote your position than attacking mine will ever do.

Do you understand what I am telling you?

quote:
"But the Saviour did not meet argument with argument. Raising His hand with solemn, quiet dignity, He pressed the truth home with greater assurance...." (DA 171)

"The way to dispel darkness is to admit light. The best way to deal with error is to present truth." (DA 498)

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/13/05 07:04 PM

"The best way to deal with error is ..."

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/13/05 07:07 PM

"... to present TRUTH."

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/14/05 07:49 AM

The topic of the thread is "Why did Jesus have to die?" The Scriptures present three basic reasons, as far as I can tell. The first is to bring us to God. Here are a couple of texts which deal with this theme:

quote:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on F13 the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.(1 Pet. 2:24, 25)

8 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Pet. 3:18)

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind F3 by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled. (Col 1:19-21)

These deal with the theme of bringing us to God. The death of Christ brings us to God by healing the alienation of our minds. In the cross we see the truth about God's character, which heals and reconciles us.

quote:
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Heb. 2:14)

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:8)

This second has to do with destroying the forces of vile. A third theme has to do with the cross revealing the love of God, but I'll leave these for now.

The text that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins has been cited, however this text does not help us in answering the question as to WHY Christ's death was necessary. To say that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin is equivalent to say that the death of Christ was necessary for our salvation. There's no doubt about that. The question is why.

The texts I have cited give reasons as to why Christ died. There are no texts from Scripture which suggest that Christ died in order to allow God to legally forgive us, or to appease His wrath.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/14/05 08:48 AM

Thank you for sharing your view so clearly. I shall be happy to let this be the last word. Unless you wish to continue studying it. However, you already know what I believe about it. Perhaps someone else would like to share what makes sense to them?

Posted By: Tom

Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die? - 08/14/05 10:21 AM

OK, MM. I will accept your gracious offer to allow me last word. You never did point out any Scripture which supports your view, except for suggesting the verse in Hebrews which says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, which, as I pointed out, does not address the question as to why Christ died.

We can see if anyone else chooses to join in.

Thank you for posting this topic. I can think of no topic more important. The Spirit of Prophesy says that every truth of Scripture can only be understood in the light of the cross.