Ty Gibson on the sin problem and the atonement

Tom, if you truly believe you understand why the life and death of Jesus was necessary to redeem us then you know more than the inspired authors knew. If Adam and Eve had died without having children the GC would still have ended in God's favor. If the Father had slain Jesus with His own hands the GC would have ended in God's favor. If Adam and Eve had refused to eat the forbidden fruit the GC would have ended in God’s favor.

The GC could have ended in God’s favor without mankind ever sinning and without Jesus ever having to die. This tells me that the life and death of Jesus were not necessary for God to win the GC, for God to safeguard eternity against future sinning. Why the life and death of Jesus were necessary to redeem us is truly a mystery. That He did is nothing less than amazing grace.

So you are saying that whatever God does is the right thing to do? Why then allow sin to enter our planet? Since He could have stoped it and won anyhow..

/Thomas

Thank you, Tom. But you seem to be equating the benefits of Jesus' life and death with why they were necessary. Do you agree that if Adam and Eve had successfully resisted Satan that the GC would have ended without us sinning and without the death of Jesus?

Thomas, I agree. We should be asking - Why? Why was the life and death of Jesus necessary to redeem us? Why is it the only way Jesus can pardon and save us? Why would Adam and Eve's victory have secured the universe against future sinning without the earthly life and death of Jesus?

After having asked these questions for years I have come to the conclusions that it is a mystery. Why Jesus couldn't save us some other way is a mystery to me. I accept it by faith. Those who wish to fault me for it are welcome to their opinions.

Thank you, Tom. But you seem to be equating the benefits of Jesus' life and death with why they were necessary.

Why are you making a distinction here? Why do you insist that we cannot know why Jesus died for us when God has spent to much time and energy to tell us?

Do you agree that if Adam and Eve had successfully resisted Satan that the GC would have ended without us sinning and without the death of Jesus?

I agree it could have. It seems speculative to guess what might have happened had Adam and Eve not sinned. Maybe one of the other worlds would have sinned. Maybe God would have devised some other way of dealing with the Great Controversy.

Certainly the principle of the cross would have needed to have been understood, as it is only this principle which secures the universe, as the Spirit of Prophecy explained. However, it is possible God could have made this principle clear in some other way than Christ's actually dying had noone sinned other than the angels.

Remember, however, that the Great Controversy would still need to be resolved, even if man hadn't sinned, and man's not sinning would not resolve it. Man wasn't the issue -- God was. The cross resolved the issue by making clear God's character and the character of the adversary, as the Spirit of Prophecy points out.

Why? Why was the life and death of Jesus necessary to redeem us?

This is a wonderful question to ponder. From Scripture:

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

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)

From the Spirit of Prophecy:

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 762)

Jesus died in order that we might know the height and depth of the love of God, that we might receive hope in the knowledge of God, that by beholding His character we might be drawn back to God.

Note how similar the language of Paul, Peter and Ellen White: Paul "reconciled"; Peter "bring us to God."; Ellen White "drawn back to God."

There's much more involved in Jesus' death than this, as the whole Great Controversy is involved. A good place to study from the Spirit of Prophecy on this subject is "It is Finished" from the Desire of Ages.

A final point is that we have a tendency to separate Christ's death from His life, which isn't a good way of looking at it. A better way, IMO, is to think of it like Mt. Everest, with the cross being the peak. Christ's whole life was for the explicity purpose of revealing God. Everything He did was for that purpose. The culmination of that purpose was His death, but the purpose of His death was no different than the purpose of His life.

Why is it the only way Jesus can pardon and save us?

Because that's the only way we could see the truth.

Why would Adam and Eve's victory have secured the universe against future sinning without the earthly life and death of Jesus?

Where are you getting this from?

Tom, nowhere in the sacred writings is there an explanation of why Jesus’ life and death makes pardon and salvation possible, why it empowers sinners to resist sin and to imitate Jesus’ sinless example. Death meant more back then than it does now. We are severely desensitized to death and dying. It doesn’t impact us as much as it did Adam and Eve.

Knowing that Jesus would someday suffer for their sins and die their second death motivated Adam and Eve to cooperate with the plan of salvation in a way that gave them power and victory over sin, self, and Satan. Apparently this is the only thing that could successfully impress upon them the importance of obedience and the consequences of sinning.

But there is more to it than the moral influence that the sacrificial life and death of Jesus has upon fallen beings. That is, God insists upon punishing and destroying someone on account of the sins we commit. And not just because it motivates a few to repent and reform.

I can relate to the part of Jesus’ life and death on my behalf motivating me to seek salvation and eternal life through God’s appointed way. But there is the part about God requiring punishment and death for the sins we have committed. I cannot escape this reality. It is mysterious to me. By faith I believe it will one day, perhaps zillions of years into eternity, dawn upon me why God could not eliminate our sins without punishing Jesus on the cross and then placing our sins upon Satan in the lake of fire.

SR 24
If they endured the trial they were to be in perpetual favor with God and the heavenly angels. {SR 24.2}

SR 30, 31
If they remained steadfast against the first insinuations of Satan, they were as secure as the heavenly angels. {SR 30.2}

SR 41
They promised that they would in the future yield to God implicit obedience. They were informed that in their fall from innocence to guilt they gained no strength but great weakness. They had not preserved their integrity while they were in a state of holy, happy innocence, and they would have far less strength to remain true and loyal in a state of conscious guilt. They were filled with keenest anguish and remorse. They now realized that the penalty of sin was death. {SR 40.3}

SR 42, 43
He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself, that through Him man might find pardon; that through the merits of His blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God and be brought into the beautiful garden and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. {SR 42.2}

SR 45
Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no. It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His beloved Son to die for him." Angels were so interested for man's salvation that there could be found among them those who would yield their glory and give their life for perishing man, "But," said my accompanying angel, "that would avail nothing. The transgression was so great that an angel's life would not pay the debt. Nothing but the death and intercessions of His Son would pay the debt and save lost man from hopeless sorrow and misery." {SR 45.1}

SR 46
They were then informed that the Son of God, who had conversed with them in Eden, had been moved with pity as He viewed their hopeless condition, and had volunteered to take upon Himself the punishment due to them, and die for them that man might yet live, through faith in the atonement Christ proposed to make for him. Through Christ a door of hope was opened, that man, notwithstanding his great sin, should not be under the absolute control of Satan. Faith in the merits of the Son of God would so elevate man that he could resist the devices of Satan. Probation would be granted him in which, through a life of repentance and faith in the atonement of the Son of God, he might be redeemed from his transgression of the Father's law, and thus be elevated to a position where his efforts to keep His law could be accepted. {SR 46.3}

SR 48
Adam was informed that an angel's life could not pay the debt. The law of Jehovah, the foundation of His government in heaven and upon earth, was as sacred as God Himself; and for this reason the life of an angel could not be accepted of God as a sacrifice for its transgression. His law is of more importance in His sight than the holy angels around His throne. The Father could not abolish or change one precept of His law to meet man in his fallen condition. But the Son of God, who had in unison with the Father created man, could make an atonement for man acceptable to God, by giving His life a sacrifice and bearing the wrath of His Father. Angels informed Adam that, as his transgression had brought death and wretchedness, life and immortality would be brought to light through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. {SR 48.1}

SR 50
This ceremonial offering, ordained of God, was to be a perpetual reminder to Adam of his guilt, and also a penitential acknowledgment of his sin. This act of taking life gave Adam a deeper and more perfect sense of his transgression, which nothing less than the death of God's dear Son could expiate. He marveled at the infinite goodness and matchless love which would give such a ransom to save the guilty. As Adam was slaying the innocent victim, it seemed to him that he was shedding the blood of the Son of God by his own hand. He knew that if he had remained steadfast to God, and true to His holy law, there would have been no death of beast nor of man. Yet in the sacrificial offerings, pointing to the great and perfect offering of God's dear Son, there appeared a star of hope to illuminate the dark and terrible future, and relieve it of its utter hopelessness and ruin. {SR 50.2}

SR 51
Without the atonement of the Son of God there could be no communication of blessing or salvation from God to man. God was jealous for the honor of His law. The transgression of that law caused a fearful separation between God and man. To Adam in his innocency was granted communion, direct, free, and happy, with his Maker. After his transgression God would communicate to man through Christ and angels. {SR 50.3}

Tom, nowhere in the sacred writings is there an explanation of why Jesus’ life and death makes pardon and salvation possible, why it empowers sinners to resist sin and to imitate Jesus’ sinless example.

Rest assured, the Lord wants you to know the reason for Christ's life and death, and He will teach you if you want to know. I'm sorry you're having trouble seeing it.

Death meant more back then than it does now. We are severely desensitized to death and dying. It doesn’t impact us as much as it did Adam and Eve.

The impact of the death of Christ is not limited to physical death, which is what you are referring to. It is a spiritual matter, and spiritual things are spitually discerned. The cross is just as understandable now as in the past; more so, in fact, because we have more light about it.

Knowing that Jesus would someday suffer for their sins and die their second death motivated Adam and Eve to cooperate with the plan of salvation in a way that gave them power and victory over sin, self, and Satan. Apparently this is the only thing that could successfully impress upon them the importance of obedience and the consequences of sinning.

These weren't the primary issues. The primary issues had to do with God's character. As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, by a knowledge of God's character, man could be drawn back to God. The whole purpose of Christ's mission, as she says, was the revelation of God, in order to set man right with God. To know God is life eternal. A knowledge of God is the essential thing.

But there is more to it than the moral influence that the sacrificial life and death of Jesus has upon fallen beings.

Are you confusing what I've been quoting from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy with the moral influence theory? I'm guessing that because of your use of the phrase "moral influence." The moral influence theory is quite different from the ideas I've been quoting. I can go into detail about this if you are interested.

That is, God insists upon punishing and destroying someone on account of the sins we commit. And not just because it motivates a few to repent and reform.

God punishes sin by giving those who have given themselves over to is to the effects of their choice. The destruction of the wicked, to use Ellen White's words, is "not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God" but rather "the result of their own choice." She goes on to explain that the glory of God must consume sin, and if one refuses to be separated from it, one will be destroyed along with the sin. But this is not something arbitrary which God insists on doing. It's a matter of reality. To sin, wherever it is found, God is a consuming fire. This is something which is, not something God does arbitrarily.

I can relate to the part of Jesus’ life and death on my behalf motivating me to seek salvation and eternal life through God’s appointed way. But there is the part about God requiring punishment and death for the sins we have committed. I cannot escape this reality. It is mysterious to me. By faith I believe it will one day, perhaps zillions of years into eternity, dawn upon me why God could not eliminate our sins without punishing Jesus on the cross and then placing our sins upon Satan in the lake of fire.

I also hope someday you can understand the Plan of Salvation. I hope it doesn't take so long as you think it might.

Once someone told me that he couldnt explain the trinity, yet he believed it is true. But others have atempted to explain it. Maybe it is the same with this question of atonement. Some can explain why Jesus had to die and for some it remains a mystery, but both groups believe it happened for the salvation of thier souls. And maybe that is ok, maybe a childs faith is all that is required, "God Father said it and thats good enough for me" faith.
Some need to know why and God will reveal for those who seek, some dont need to understand the detaljs, both groups live in faith and are counted righteous for it as Abraham.

/Thomas

Tom, our differences regarding sin and death and salvation is preventing us from going any further in this study. I believe you are overlooking or discounting or misinterpreting the punitive aspect of the cross and the plan of salvation. You seem to be saying that God simply allows us to reap what we have sown and that this is what constitutes the wrath of God.

But you also go on to say (somewhere on MSDAOL) that God is postponing the true results of sinning, namely, immediate death. Therefore, as I see it, what you call reaping what we sow is actually not the true results of sinning, but are in fact the results of God postponing the true results.

Nevertheless, none of these insights help me understand why Jesus’ life and death can legally or really atone for my sin and death. You haven’t addressed this aspect of the plan of salvation. I agree with you that Jesus’ life and death inspires me to appreciate the kingdom and character of God, but it doesn’t help me understand why His life and death can atone for my sin and death.

There is nothing right or fair about God allowing Jesus to pay my sin debt. I can see how an unbeliever might question the ethics and legitimacy of it. I can see how they might think if anything is arbitrary about the plan of salvation it is God allowing Jesus to pay my sin debt. So I'm asking you - Why isn't it arbitrary? What makes it right and fair?

Tom

Good point, will have to consider that more.

/Thomas

Tom, our differences regarding sin and death and salvation is preventing us from going any further in this study. I believe you are overlooking or discounting or misinterpreting the punitive aspect of the cross and the plan of salvation.

I don't think so. The punitive aspects of the plan of salvation is that sin results in death. This is exactly what we see in the cross. Christ was made to be sin for us, and He died. He died of mental agony, as He perceived the sinfulness of sin. This is well described in "Calvary" in "The Desire of Ages."

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

You seem to be saying that God simply allows us to reap what we have sown and that this is what constitutes the wrath of God.

That's what I've been quoting, yes. DA 764, which I've quoted many times, says exactly this:

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

But you also go on to say (somewhere on MSDAOL) that God is postponing the true results of sinning, namely, immediate death. Therefore, as I see it, what you call reaping what we sow is actually not the true results of sinning, but are in fact the results of God postponing the true results.

This seems like a twisted way of looking at it. Let's take a look at a statement from the Spirit of Prophecy:

We should not try to lessen our guilt by excusing sin. We must accept God's estimate of sin, and that is heavy indeed. Calvary alone can reveal the terrible enormity of sin. If we had to bear our own guilt, it would crush us. But the sinless One has taken our place; though undeserving, He has borne our iniquity.(MB 116)

This is true of everyone, not just believers. If any person had to bear their own guilt, it would crush them (as it will in the end of time, when the wicked our destroyed). But Christ bears everyone's guilt, so that sin does not immediately kill them. This seems very clear to me. Is it not clear to you that if Christ were, even for a moment, to stop bearing our guilt that it would crush us?

So sin, through guilt, would crush us, but because of God's grace we are blithely ignornant of our guilt. However, at the judgment, the wicked will become aware of their guilt, and it will crush them.

To suggest that they die because of God's allowing them to bear their guilt seems to me to be a very strange way of looking at it. All a man's life God is pleading with him through His Spirit to be reconciled to Him, but the man says He wants nothing to do with God. Eventually God leaves Edom alone with his idols, and he dies. This is not God's fault.

Nevertheless, none of these insights help me understand why Jesus’ life and death can legally or really atone for my sin and death.

I think the difficult is because you are not focusing on the real issue. Please consider the following:

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 762)

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

The very attributes that belonged to the character of Satan, the evil one represented as belonging to the character of God. Jesus came to teach men of the Father, to correctly represent him before the fallen children of earth. Angels could not fully portray the character of God, but Christ, who was a living impersonation of God, could not fail to accomplish the work. The only way in which he could set and keep men right was to make himself visible and familiar to their eyes. That men might have salvation he came directly to man, and became a partaker of his nature. (ST 1/20/90)

The problem of man is that he has not understood God's character. To make it plain, God became a man. He made Himself visible and familiar to our eyes, that we might have salvation, that we might be set right and kept right with Him. By beholding God as His is in Christ, we are drawn to Him. His goodness leads us to repentance. The light shining from the cross draws us to Him. It beckons us to unite ourselves to Him. By the revelation of truth, God wins us to Himself, if we do not resist Him.

You haven’t addressed this aspect of the plan of salvation.

There is no other aspect of the Plan of Salvation than what I have been presenting. *All* that is necessary is that we know God. To know God is life eternal. Please take note of the following quote, also from the ST article quoted above:

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.

What was the object of Christ's mission? The revelation of God to the world. This is *all* that is necessary. Note she makes this point in two ways. First of all, she says it "Christ exalted the character of God,...the whole purpose of His own mission on earth, to set men right through the revelation of God." Please note this was the *whole* purpose. Secondly she states that when the object of His mission was accomplished, to reveal the character of God, that His work was accomplished.

This is not at all difficult to understand. A child can understand this. Where the difficult comes in is when we want to make things more complicated than this. Then there is difficult in understanding it, because it's not more complicated than this. There aren't other aspects of Christ's sacrifice that need to be taken into consideration, because to reveal God was the whole purpose of everything Christ did -- everything.

So if we try to understand the death of Christ, or any other aspect of His life, divorced from the purpose of His mission, to reveal God's character to us, then we are destined to be confused. It cannot be otherwise.

I agree with you that Jesus’ life and death inspires me to appreciate the kingdom and character of God, but it doesn’t help me understand why His life and death can atone for my sin and death.

I think you're scratching where it doesn't itch. You're trying to understand a problem which doesn't exist, and that's why you can't understand it.

There is nothing right or fair about God allowing Jesus to pay my sin debt.

I can see how an unbeliever might question the ethics and legitimacy of it. I can see how they might think if anything is arbitrary about the plan of salvation it is God allowing Jesus to pay my sin debt. So I'm asking you - Why isn't it arbitrary? What makes it right and fair?

I'd suggest re-reading the second Ty Gibson quote I presented, about the two party and three party way of looking at the atonement. I think you're trying to look at it as a three party system, which would be unfair, as you point out, and arbitrary, as Ty points out.

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

I'll await your comments. I wish you well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TE: I think you're scratching where it doesn't itch. You're trying to understand a problem which doesn't exist, and that's why you can't understand it.

MM: I’m sorry you think so.

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

MM: The problem is I disagree with Ty’s view of the third party victim. He pretends to understand why the life and death of Jesus satisfies the just demands of God and His broken law, why His life and death makes pardon and salvation possible. Ty does not address the questions I’m asking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve missed this.

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

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

Why?

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

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

Ty does not address the questions I’m asking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MM: Not!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MM: Not!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So which is it?

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

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

I believe this! The wicked die because they reap that which they have sown. The separate themselves from God, the fountain of life. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

This is what I've been presenting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TE: So which is it?

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

TE: This is what I've been presenting.

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

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

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

/Thomas

MM, I think we've gotten on a bit of a tangent. I'd like to get back to the point I was making before, regarding the guilt of our sin crushing us. Here's the statement from the Spirit of Prophecy:

We should not try to lessen our guilt by excusing sin. We must accept God's estimate of sin, and that is heavy indeed. Calvary alone can reveal the terrible enormity of sin. If we had to bear our own guilt, it would crush us. (MB 116)

It looks to me from what you wrote that you were for some reason isolating this statement to Adam and Eve. But it should be clear, from even a brief perusal of the statement, that she did not have Adam and Eve in mind at all.

It should also be clear that this statement cannot be limited to believers, but must include unbelievers as well, since the guilt of their sin would crush them just as much as the guilt of a believer's sins.

So from this statement it is evident that sin would indeed kill us without any arbitrary action on God's part to bring about our demise. God is actively protecting us, and everyone, from the effects of sin, by bearing our guilt in the person of Jesus Christ.

I'd like to return to another statement of hers, which you originally quoted:

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

Is it not clear that she is pointing to an equivalence in the death of Christ and the death of the wicked?

TE: It looks to me from what you wrote that you were for some reason isolating this statement to Adam and Eve.

MM: The reason I mentioned Adam and Eve in the context of crushing guilt is because if God hadn’t instituted the plan of salvation the human race would not have survived the instant death of our first parents. Crushing guilt isn’t the only thing that causes the wicked agony in the lake of fire, the flames themselves contribute to it as well.

TE: Is it not clear that she is pointing to an equivalence in the death of Christ and the death of the wicked?

MM: Yes, but there is more to the punishment and destruction of the wicked than what Jesus experienced on the cross. Unlike Jesus, the wicked will also suffer in the flames of the lake of fire.

Thomas, here is a typical explanation of the scapegoat by Sister White, a description that most people consider heretical. Please note how she writes about the "sins" of the saved and what happens to them.

PP 357, 358
The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement; so in the type the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent, but it rested in the sanctuary until the Day of Atonement. {PP 357.5}

In the great day of final award, the dead are to be "judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Revelation 20:12. Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven. Thus the sanctuary will be freed, or cleansed, from the record of sin. In the type, this great work of atonement, or blotting out of sins, was represented by the services of the Day of Atonement--the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary, which was accomplished by the removal, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, of the sins by which it had been polluted. {PP 357.6}

As in the final atonement the sins of the truly penitent are to be blotted from the records of heaven, no more to be remembered or come into mind, so in the type they were borne away into the wilderness, forever separated from the congregation. {PP 358.1}

Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment. Christ's work for the redemption of men and the purification of the universe from sin will be closed by the removal of sin from the heavenly sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon Satan, who will bear the final penalty. So in the typical service, the yearly round of ministration closed with the purification of the sanctuary, and the confessing of the sins on the head of the scapegoat. {PP 358.2}

Thus in the ministration of the tabernacle, and of the temple that afterward took its place, the people were taught each day the great truths relative to Christ's death and ministration, and once each year their minds were carried forward to the closing events of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, the final purification of the universe from sin and sinners. {PP 358.3}

Here is another description:

GC 422
It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty. The scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, never to come again into the congregation of Israel. So will Satan be forever banished from the presence of God and His people, and he will be blotted from existence in the final destruction of sin and sinners. {GC 422.2}

GC 485, 486
In the typical service the high priest, having made the atonement for Israel, came forth and blessed the congregation. So Christ, at the close of His work as mediator, will appear, "without sin unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:28), to bless His waiting people with eternal life. As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited" (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. Thus the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment in the final eradication of sin and the deliverance of all who have been willing to renounce evil. {GC 485.3}

1.If the quilt of our sin would crush us unless Christ were bearing it, it follows that sin in and of itself would kill us, and there is no need for God to impose anything on top of this in order to kill us. It sounds to me like you are agreeing with this statement (although you think there is more to it than this).

What I wnat to make clear is the principle that there is no *necessity* for God to do anything in addition to ceasing to bear our sin in the person of Jesus Christ in order to kill us. According to your view, God chooses to do so, but even if He didn't, the wicked would all die. Do you agree with this?

2.MM, you're just accepting your own presuppositions without questioning whether they make sense. There's more than one way to interpret the texts you are looking at, but you are fixed on one way. When arguments are brought to your attention which illustrate bring out shortcomings of the interpretation, rather than reconsidering the interpretation to see if an alternative might make more sense, you throw away that possibility, and just stick with what you already had.

For example, you agree with me that the Spirit of Prophecy is making an equivalence between the death of the wicked and the death of Christ. But then you backtrack saying that the death of the wicked is different than the death of Christ because of the flames God uses to torture the wicked with. But this is the very question under consideration! If the SOP is establishing a principle of equivalence between the death of the wicked and the death of Christ, then your view of the death of the wicked comes into question.

Even using your view of penal substitution, your view doesn't make sense, because if Christ died to pay the legal price of the debt of sin, and the legal price of the debt of sin is the execution of the sinner in flames of fire, then that's the price Christ would have had to pay. That is, Christ would have had to have been tortured in literal flames of fire, just like the wicked will be, or there is no legal basis upon which to forgive the repentent wicked person.

Mike

I thought you said that Ellens writings on the subject would be like biblestudies? I see two bible quotes in the text you posted and in both cases it appears that they are there to support the thesis rather than the thesis supporting the bible quotes. Where are the bible study parts you mentioned?

/Thomas

Leviticus 16 is the main basis, but in order to understand the Day of Atonement in more depth, the various sacrificial offerings should be studied to see if our view of the scapegoat is sound. I've reviewed the different offerings, especially the ones that have the closest parallels, for example, where two birds are offered, and the offering of the murder heifer and the offering of the red heifer and the goat sin offerings. I've concluded our position on this is sound. We are not saying that we receive any merit because the sins of the redeemed are placed on Satan. The types only describe what the final disposition of sin is and illustrate for us and foretell that they are ultimately reflected back on Satan their originator. The evangelicals do not understand our position if they think we believe the final disposition of sin has some part in our salvation. All merit is found only in the blood of Christ.

Please folks, we are creating a record here and for the sake of those who come later, within reason, stay on the listed topic. Thanks in advance for co-operating.

I think our position on the scapegoat is sound, but not the position MM is presenting. Our position is that Satan will receive the consequences for the responsibility he bears. This is from our official website (http://www.adventistinfo.org.uk/about/fundamen.php)

This suggestion has come about from the belief that on the Day of Atonement the Azazel goat had sins laid upon it and was sent into the wilderness. But in no sense is that goat a ‘sin-bearer’. The Day of Atonement is a symbol of the last judgement when Satan, Hades and death are cast into the lake of fire. The most important part of the Day of Atonement was when the Lord’s goat was sacrificed for sin, thus putting things right between God and His people. Only when the atonement was complete (Leviticus 16:16-19) did Azazel enter the picture. I think that the scapegoat was simply an indication that the devil would eventually be faced with the consequences of his action, when sin and sinners will be no more.

The fellow who wrote this, responding to a question posed, is exactly right. The devil will eventually be faced with the consequences of his action. This is a reasonable point of view, and sustainable by Scripture. One thing to bear in mind is that at the time Leviticus was written, there was a common understanding among the Hebrews that Azazel was Satan, which is made clear by contemporary literature, specifically the pseudopigrapha.

TE: For example, you agree with me that the Spirit of Prophecy is making an equivalence between the death of the wicked and the death of Christ. But then you backtrack saying that the death of the wicked is different than the death of Christ because of the flames God uses to torture the wicked with. But this is the very question under consideration! If the SOP is establishing a principle of equivalence between the death of the wicked and the death of Christ, then your view of the death of the wicked comes into question.

MM: I am not backtracking. I believe Jesus was punished and died for the sins of the saved. I do not believe Jesus died the second death. I believe Satan is the one who dies with the sins of the saved and their second death in the lake of fire. I also believe the unsaved wicked pay their own sin debt in the lake of fire – not Satan.

TE: Even using your view of penal substitution, your view doesn't make sense, because if Christ died to pay the legal price of the debt of sin, and the legal price of the debt of sin is the execution of the sinner in flames of fire, then that's the price Christ would have had to pay. That is, Christ would have had to have been tortured in literal flames of fire, just like the wicked will be, or there is no legal basis upon which to forgive the repentent wicked person.

MM: Again, Jesus earned the legal right to own the sin and second death of the entire human race. He accomplished this by suffering the wrath of God on the cross – not in the lake of fire. As lawful owner of all sin and second death it is Jesus’ right and duty to eliminate them in the right way. He will accomplish this by saving all who choose to be saved and by causing Satan to die with their sin and second death in the lake of fire. It is Satan who will die with the sins of the saved and their second death in the lake of fire – not Jesus.

TV: I thought you said that Ellens writings on the subject would be like biblestudies? I see two bible quotes in the text you posted and in both cases it appears that they are there to support the thesis rather than the thesis supporting the bible quotes. Where are the bible study parts you mentioned?

MM: Thomas, please read the context of the quotes I posted. Thank you.

TE: I think our position on the scapegoat is sound, but not the position MM is presenting. Our position is that Satan will receive the consequences for the responsibility he bears.

MM: Tom, how does your position differ from the SOP quotes I posted?

GC 485
The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited" (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. Thus the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment in the final eradication of sin and the deliverance of all who have been willing to renounce evil. {GC 485.3}

1. What does "bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit" mean to you?

2. What does "he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked" mean to you?

3. What does "thus the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment" mean to you?

If you make the death that Christ died on the cross different than the death of the wicked, there are several problems that creates. First of all, it destroys the equivalence of the deaths, which both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy make in many places. That is, the death which Christ experienced is the very same death the wicked will experience. If it were different, it wouldn't make any sense to say "He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His." (DA 24)

Here are some more examples where the Spirit of Prophecy equates the two:

After all that has been done to save them that a God could do, if they show by their lives that they slight Jesus' offered mercy, death will be their portion, and it will be dearly purchased. It will be a dreadful death; for they will have to feel the agony that Christ felt upon the cross to purchase for them redemption, which they have refused. (SP Vol. 4B page 11)

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

Why it is important that we understand the two deaths are related? I'll mention two reasons. First of all, it was because Jesus Christ suffered our death that we don't need to. That's from DA24 listed above. "He suffered the death that was ours." Same death. Not a different one.

Secondly, Christ's death made evident what the death which sin causes is like, so that when the wicked are destroyed that act will not be confused for an arbitrary act of power on the part of God.

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. ...By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. (DA 764)

Note that the death of Christ makes it evident that the death which the wicked experience is the "inevitable result of sin." This would not be possible if the death of Christ was unrelated to the death of the wicked. Her statement would not make any sense in this case.

Finally note the following quote:

Christ the sinless became sin for man. He bore the guilt of transgression, and the hiding of His Father's face, until His heart was broken and His life crushed out. All this sacrifice was made that sinners might be redeemed. In no other way could man be freed from the penalty of sin. And every soul that refuses to become a partaker of the atonement provided at such a cost must bear in his own person the guilt and punishment of transgression. (GC 539)

Note that those who refuse the atonement will bear in their own person the guilt and punishment of transgression.

The equivalence here is clear.
1.Christ bore the guilt of transgression.
2.This was necessary for us to be freed from the pentalty of sin (which is what Christ experienced).
3.Those who refuse the atonement must receive the penalty themselves.
4.They will bear in their own person the guilt and punishment of transgression.

It is very clear that Christ experienced the same death the wicked will experience. Otherwise these statements don't make sense. You destroy all the logic of her argument if you disassociate the two deaths.

The agony which Christ endured, broadens, deepens, and gives a more extended conception of the character of sin, and the character of the retribution which God will bring upon those who continue in sin. (God's Amazing Grace 168)

The character of the retribution of sin is made clear by Christ's death!

Every sacrifice pointed to Him as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, that all might understand that the wages of sin is death. (1SM 114)

The wages of sin is the second death. Christ died that we might understand this. If the death Christ experienced is not the second death, how does His death help us to understand this truth?

TE: You destroy all the logic of her argument if you disassociate the two deaths.

MM: The only one saying it is you. I’m not. Jesus conquered sin and death on the cross. The wicked will not. Jesus’ life and death is salvific. The wicked’s is not. Jesus voluntarily laid down His own life. The wicked will not. Jesus took up His life again. The wicked will not. Jesus did not die in a lake of fire. The wicked will. These are but a few examples of how Jesus’ life and death is not at all like the life and death of the wicked.

TE: The wages of sin is the second death. Christ died that we might understand this. If the death Christ experienced is not the second death, how does His death help us to understand this truth?

MM: It is obvious that Jesus did not die the second death. For one there is no resurrection after the second death. Plus, the second death takes place in the lake of fire. Jesus voluntarily laid down His life. No one took His life. He didn’t because something robbed Him of life. He laid it down Himself. He ended His own life. He didn’t die in the same way the wicked will die. It is the scapegoat, Satan, who will die with our sin and second death in the lake of fire.

DA 758
Christ did not yield up His life till He had accomplished the work which He came to do, and with His parting breath He exclaimed, "It is finished." John 19:30. The battle had been won. His right hand and His holy arm had gotten Him the victory. As a Conqueror He planted His banner on the eternal heights. {DA 758.1}

In the following quote, and all throughout the SOP, Sister White makes it clear that Satan suffers while paying the penalty for the sins of the saved, that is, the sins that the saved themselves committed. You seem to be suggesting that Satan will not pay the full and final penalty for the sins that the saved committed. I hear you saying that Satan will only pay for the sin of tempting the saved to commit the sins they committed.

GC 422
It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty. The scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, never to come again into the congregation of Israel. So will Satan be forever banished from the presence of God and His people, and he will be blotted from existence in the final destruction of sin and sinners. {GC 422.2}

TE: I produced quotes from the Spirit of Prophecy showing the equivalence, and explained why the equivalence was necessary. You didn't address any of these issues.

MM: Again, the only comparison we can make between Jesus’ death and the death of the wicked is that they will suffer a similar soul anguish when they are made to bear their own guilt. Everything else is different. I listed them above.

You seem to be suggesting that Satan will not pay the full and final penalty for the sins that the saved committed. I hear you saying that Satan will only pay for the sin of tempting the saved to commit the sins they committed. Did I read you right?

If so, then how do you explain what Jesus experienced when the sins of the world were placed upon Him?

MM, for your convenience, I will repeat the arguments. I would appreciate it if you would consider them point by point. Well, you can skip the first point, because I already know what you would say regarding it. But I don't know your thoughts on points 2-4, and I'm interested in knowing what they are.

Thank you.

1.The death is in essence the same in terms of how it happens. The wicked die a "dreadful death," experiencing the agony Christ experienced. Christ will experience the agony the wicked will experience. The Spirit of Prophecy says it both ways:Christ's death is like what the death of the wicked will be; The wicked's death will be like Christ's was.

2.We are told that Christ suffered the death that was ours that we might live the life that was His. This is only possible is He suffered the death that was ours.

3.The angels only became aware the death is not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God when Christ died. It was Christ's death which revealed the "inevitable result of sin." Therefore the death which Christ experienced must be such that it revealed what the inevitable result of sin will be. In other words, the wicked will die like Christ did, and when the angels see it, they will no longer be confused, because they saw Christ's death.

4.Those who refuse to partake of the atonement will bear in their own body the guilt and punishment of sin. This is exactly what Christ did. The punishment for sin does not change. It's not one thing for Christ and another for someone else. If that were the case, it wouldn't be true that Christ suffered the punishment of sin.

Re: Tom's questions.

1. The wicked will suffer a similar soul anguish. How they eventually die in the lake of fire is totally different. Jesus laid down his own life. The wicked will not.

2. I believe this insight means that Jesus suffered the soul anguish we would have suffered if we hadn’t allowed Him to save us. Part of dying involves soul anguish. That’s the part Jesus suffered on our behalf. And then some. See below.

3. I believe this insight means that the angels learned the truth about the soul anguish associated with sinning when they beheld Jesus suffering upon the cross.

4. Yes. Jesus suffered the soul anguish associated with sinning.

TE: Regarding Azazel, in Early Writings we read: Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused.

MM: I believe this insight means Satan will suffer 1) for his own sins, which include tempting humans to sin, 2) for the sins that the saved committed, and 3) for causing others to be lost. He will not suffer soul anguish for the sins that the lost committed.

TE: Our website says: The scapegoat was simply an indication that the devil would eventually be faced with the consequences of his action, when sin and sinners will be no more.

MM: I believe this statement is only partially correct. It is missing points 2 and 3 listed above.

TE: For God to have Satan suffer beyond the consequences of his own actions would be both.

MM: I disagree. Satan will suffer the soul anguish for the sins of the saved as if he committed them himself. “Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also [the weight and punishment] of the sins of the redeemed host ….” Again, there is nothing salvific about it.

TE: … that is, Christ experienced what we would experience apart from our partaking of the atonement.

MM: I disagree. The plan of salvation is what makes it possible for us to accumulate a lifetime of sinning. The human race would not have survived the instant death of our first parents. Since sinners suffer in proportion to their sinfulness, Adam and Eve would have died without much soul anguish.

The Bible says Jesus became sin (singular) for us. He did not become our sins (plural). This distinction is important. To me it means Jesus was treated as if He were sin itself. God hates sin, but loves sinners. His suffering would have been the same regardless of how much sin humans committed.

Thus, what Jesus did for us far exceeds merely being treated as if He committed our sins. To say He suffered what we should suffer doesn’t do it justice. To compare the death of Jesus with the death of the wicked is impossible.

2. I believe this insight means that Jesus suffered the soul anguish we would have suffered if we hadn’t allowed Him to save us. Part of dying involves soul anguish. That’s the part Jesus suffered on our behalf. And then some. See below.

Then Jesus didn't really suffer the death that was ours. Just a portion of it.

3. I believe this insight means that the angels learned the truth about the soul anguish associated with sinning when they beheld Jesus suffering upon the cross.

The problem here is if the death of the wicked involves more than soul anguish. If it does, then this answer is inadequate. The SOP tells us that before Christ's death, God could not allow Satan and his followers to suffer the inevitable results of sin, their destruction, because they would have been confused, thinking that it was something God was doing to them. So in your view, Christ's death on the cross wouldn't really solve the angel's confusion, would it?

4. Yes. Jesus suffered the soul anguish associated with sinning.

My question wasn't a "yes" or "no" question. For your convenience, I'll reask the question.

4.Those who refuse to partake of the atonement will bear in their own body the guilt and punishment of sin. This is exactly what Christ did. The punishment for sin does not change. It's not one thing for Christ and another for someone else. If that were the case, it wouldn't be true that Christ suffered the punishment of sin.

Do you agree with this? (especially the bold part)


TE: Regarding Azazel, in Early Writings we read: Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused.

MM: I believe this insight means Satan will suffer 1) for his own sins, which include tempting humans to sin, 2) for the sins that the saved committed, and 3) for causing others to be lost. He will not suffer soul anguish for the sins that the lost committed.

How could Satan suffer for something he didn't do? How would that be just?

TE: Our website says: The scapegoat was simply an indication that the devil would eventually be faced with the consequences of his action, when sin and sinners will be no more.

MM: I believe this statement is only partially correct. It is missing points 2 and 3 listed above.

This idea isn't making any sense to me. The idea seems to be that God literally transfers sin from the saved to Satan, as if sin were something like a toaster or a comb; that God transfers the toasters of the saved to Satan, but not the wicked, so that Satan will suffer due to his own toaster and the toasters of the righteous, but not the toasters of the wicked.

But sin is not like a toaster. Sin is something that happens in the mind. God will reveal the truth to Satan of the ramifications of what he has done. As the author of sin, Satan bears responsibility for all sin, whether of the righteous or the wicked. The language of the Spirit of Prophecy, as well as the sanctuary ceremonies, is designed to draw our minds to the responsibility Satan bears as the author of sin. It's not pointing to an arbitrary action on the part of God.

TE: For God to have Satan suffer beyond the consequences of his own actions would be both.

MM: I disagree.

Why? Why would it not be unjust for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do? Why would it not be arbitrary for God to make Satan suffer for something he wasn't responsible for? I'm guessing you might ask in return how is it just and non-arbitrary for Jesus Christ to have suffered for what He didn't do. The answer to this is that Jesus voluntarily and graciously accepted the responsibility for our sin. "Let the punishment fall on Me."(ST 6/27/00)

TE: … that is, Christ experienced what we would experience apart from our partaking of the atonement.

MM: I disagree.

I don't see how you can disagree with this. EGW wrote:

(Christ) bore the guilt of transgression, and the hiding of His Father's face, until His heart was broken and His life crushed out. All this sacrifice was made that sinners might be redeemed. In no other way could man be freed from the penalty of sin. And every soul that refuses to become a partaker of the atonement provided at such a cost must bear in his own person the guilt and punishment of transgression. (GC 539)

I'm just restating what she said. How is what I wrote any different than what she wrote?

The Bible says Jesus became sin (singular) for us. He did not become our sins (plural). This distinction is important. To me it means Jesus was treated as if He were sin itself. God hates sin, but loves sinners.

Does this mean that God hated Jesus?

His suffering would have been the same regardless of how much sin humans committed.

This is an interesting thought. I thought about this for awhile, and I don't think this could be true. If we study what EGW wrote we see that the suffering of Christ is not something arbitrary which God foisted upon Christ, but rather was related to guilt (see, for example, the above referenced GC 539 quote, first sentence). Therefore the greater the guilt, the greater the punishment. The human race collectively has more guilt than Adam and Eve had.

I haven't thought a lot about this, however, and do find your idea interesting. I'll think about it some more, but this is my gut reaction.

Thus, what Jesus did for us far exceeds merely being treated as if He committed our sins.

I don't think this is true. Isaiah says He was numbered among the transgressors. He restored that which He did not steal (Ps. 69). I think this corresponds to the punishment He bore. I would say the results of what Christ did involve more than simply recognizing that He was treated as we deserve, but not His punishment. That is, His punishment consists precisely in that the suffered for sin as we would have had He not suffered in our place. I'm curious as to what more you think He did, in termps of being punished.

Actually, your statement, as worded, as undeniably true. Christ did to for us far more than merely being treated as if He committed our sins. Christ's whole mission was to reveal God's character to us. *That's* the far greater thing that Christ did. But from the context, I think you had something else in mind.

To say He suffered what we should suffer doesn’t do it justice. To compare the death of Jesus with the death of the wicked is impossible.

And yet the Spirit of Prophecy did it repeatedly! "He suffered the death that was ours" is an example of the "impossible." So is the GC 539 quote. That's obviously comparing Christ's death to the death of the wicked. Christ bore the guilt of transgression by dying; He bore the penalty of sin. If we don't partake of the atonement, we will bear the guilt and punishment of transgression. This is clearly a comparison.

TE: Then Jesus didn't really suffer the death that was ours. Just a portion of it.

MM: Jesus suffered the part of death on our behalf that was appointed Him. And Satan will suffer the part of our death that is appointed him.

TE: So in your view, Christ's death on the cross wouldn't really solve the angel's confusion, would it?

MM: Obviously it did.

TE: It's not one thing for Christ and another for someone else. If that were the case, it wouldn't be true that Christ suffered the punishment of sin.

MM: Of course He did. Jesus drained the dregs of the cup of trembling. He tasted death for all of us. He suffered the ultimate agony because He didn’t die prematurely. He was triumphant over sin and death. He conquered them. They didn’t kill Him or cause His death. He laid down His own life after He had gained the victory, after He defeated them.

DA 758
Christ did not yield up His life till He had accomplished the work which He came to do, and with His parting breath He exclaimed, "It is finished." John 19:30. The battle had been won. His right hand and His holy arm had gotten Him the victory. As a Conqueror He planted His banner on the eternal heights. Was there not joy among the angels? All heaven triumphed in the Saviour's victory. Satan was defeated, and knew that his kingdom was lost. {DA 758.1}

TE: How could Satan suffer for something he didn't do? How would that be just?

MM: Jesus defeated sin and death on the cross but He hasn’t eliminated them yet. He will accomplish this by placing them upon Satan in the lake of fire.

TE: But sin is not like a toaster.

MM: If sin is unlike a toaster then why does it still exist in the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus placed it after earning the right to own it on the cross? I’m resisting the temptation to refer to burnt toast.

TE: Does this mean that God hated Jesus?

MM: God hates sin, and Jesus became sin for us. It is a mystery, right?

TE: *That's* the far greater thing that Christ did. But from the context, I think you had something else in mind.

MM: I agree with your insight, too. I believe in addition to suffering for every sin ever committed since the fall of man He also suffered for all the sins He as God was capable of committing. Simply suffering for the sins of man would not have been enough to demonstrate the hideousness of sin to the point no one would ever want to commit a sin again. The suffering Jesus experienced far exceeded what man or angel is capable of experiencing. And this display was necessary to uproot the seed of rebellion forever. Otherwise the mere punishment and death of a man or angel would have sufficed.

TE: Then Jesus didn't really suffer the death that was ours. Just a portion of it.

MM: Jesus suffered the part of death on our behalf that was appointed Him. And Satan will suffer the part of our death that is appointed him.

If you compare the things she wrote with one another, it should be clear that it was not her intention to make Satan a co-bearer of our sin in conjunction with Jesus. Jesus didn't share the burden of bearing the penalty of our sin and transgression with Satan. Nowhere does Scripture even remotely suggest this. Everywhere the bearing of sin is mentioned, it is Jesus Christ who bears our sin. It's not "Behold the Lamb of God and the serpent who bear the sin of the world" but "Behold the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world!"

TE: So in your view, Christ's death on the cross wouldn't really solve the angel's confusion, would it?

MM: Obviously it did.

But according to your view, it couldn't have, because it doesn't explain the issues that needed to be addressed. It doesn't explain how that when the wicked are destroyed the angels will no longer be confused that the death of the wicked is due to an arbitrary of act of power from God, if, indeed, they die due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God.

There's some loose ends that need to be tied together here. If the wicked die because God rains fire down from heaven to destroy them, how could Jesus' death in any way resolve the angel's confusion that this fire raining down from God comes from God? What does Jesus' death have to do with this? As you keep pointing out, Jesus didn't die in the lake of fire.

You keep pointing out that Jesus' death was very different than the death of the wicked. How then does Jesus' death explain it? I don't see how this makes any sense. She doesn't say that Jesus' death resolves the doubts the angels would have due to the soul anguish the wicked suffer. Please consider the quote:

Then the end will come. God will vindicate His law and deliver His people. Satan and all who have joined him in rebellion will be cut off. Sin and sinners will perish, root and branch, (Mal. 4:1),--Satan the root, and his followers the branches. The word will be fulfilled to the prince of evil, "Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; . . . I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. . . . Thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Then "the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be;" "they shall be as though they had not been." Ezek. 28:6-19; Ps. 37:10; Obadiah 16.

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

How do you get that Jesus' death explains only the soul anguish of the wicked from this?

TE: It's not one thing for Christ and another for someone else. If that were the case, it wouldn't be true that Christ suffered the punishment of sin.

MM: Of course He did. Jesus drained the dregs of the cup of trembling. He tasted death for all of us. He suffered the ultimate agony because He didn’t die prematurely. He was triumphant over sin and death. He conquered them. They didn’t kill Him or cause His death. He laid down His own life after He had gained the victory, after He defeated them.

If Jesus exhausted the penalty of sin, then how could Satan bear it?

DA 758
Christ did not yield up His life till He had accomplished the work which He came to do, and with His parting breath He exclaimed, "It is finished." John 19:30. The battle had been won. His right hand and His holy arm had gotten Him the victory. As a Conqueror He planted His banner on the eternal heights. Was there not joy among the angels? All heaven triumphed in the Saviour's victory. Satan was defeated, and knew that his kingdom was lost. {DA 758.1}

TE: How could Satan suffer for something he didn't do? How would that be just?

MM: Jesus defeated sin and death on the cross but He hasn’t eliminated them yet. He will accomplish this by placing them upon Satan in the lake of fire.

This doesn't address the question. The question is how would it be just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do?

TE: But sin is not like a toaster.

MM: If sin is unlike a toaster then why does it still exist in the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus placed it after earning the right to own it on the cross? I’m resisting the temptation to refer to burnt toast.

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. When it speaks of Jesus applying His blood to our sins, is that referring to literal blood? Is Jesus' real blood in the heavenly sanctuary? God is attempting to communicate spiritual truth to us.

This seems like when Jesus said "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" and the disciples replied "It is because we have no bread."

TE: Does this mean that God hated Jesus?

MM: God hates sin, and Jesus became sin for us. It is a mystery, right?

Does this mean God hated Jesus?

TE: *That's* the far greater thing that Christ did. But from the context, I think you had something else in mind.

MM: I agree with your insight, too. I believe in addition to suffering for every sin ever committed since the fall of man He also suffered for all the sins He as God was capable of committing.

Is this really what you meant? Or do you mean all the sins man could have committed? God is not capable of committing sin.

Simply suffering for the sins of man would not have been enough to demonstrate the hideousness of sin to the point no one would ever want to commit a sin again. The suffering Jesus experienced far exceeded what man or angel is capable of experiencing. And this display was necessary to uproot the seed of rebellion forever. Otherwise the mere punishment and death of a man or angel would have sufficed.

Would have sufficed for what? The problem is that the nature and results of sin were not known, and neither the character of God, nor the height and depth of His love. How could the death of a man or angel have clarified any of these issues?

TE: Everywhere the bearing of sin is mentioned, it is Jesus Christ who bears our sin.

MM: Except for the passages I quoted earlier on this thread where Sister White plainly says Satan must bear the sins of the saved in the lake of fire.

GC 485
The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited" (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. Thus the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment in the final eradication of sin and the deliverance of all who have been willing to renounce evil. {GC 485.3}

TE: How do you get that Jesus' death explains only the soul anguish of the wicked from this?

MM: There is nothing arbitrary about God punishing and destroying the wicked in the lake of fire. He does it because they are worthy. Listen to how the angels think and feel about the seven last plagues:

Revelation
16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.

TE: If Jesus exhausted the penalty of sin, then how could Satan bear it?

MM: Jesus earned the right to own our sin and second death. He did not eliminate them. He took them to heaven with Him. He will eliminate them with Satan in the lake of fire.

TE: This doesn't address the question. The question is how would it be just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do?

MM: How is it just and right for Jesus to volunteer to pay our sin debt? How God can justify saving and forgiving us? What is right and fair about it? It’s easier for me to understand Satan dying with my sin and second death than it is for me to understand how it is just for Jesus to die for my sin and second death.

TE: Is Jesus' real blood in the heavenly sanctuary?

MM: Yes. It’s in His veins and arteries. Our sin and second death is quarantined in His body and blood.

TE: Is this really what you meant? Or do you mean all the sins man could have committed? God is not capable of committing sin.

MM: Yes, I believe Jesus became sin for us. He suffered soul anguish as if He Himself had sinned in the same way He suffered as if He Himself were guilty of committing our sins.

TE: Would have sufficed for what?

MM: If suffering soul anguish in the same way the wicked will suffer it in the lake of fire is sufficient to uproot the seed of rebellion then Jesus need not have suffered and died. The fact only His death could uproot evil is evidence there is more to it than merely suffering for the sins of mankind.

Before addressing your post, I've asked you at least three times now if God hated Christ as He was dying on the cross.

TE: Everywhere the bearing of sin is mentioned, it is Jesus Christ who bears our sin.

MM: Except for the passages I quoted earlier on this thread where Sister White plainly says Satan must bear the sins of the saved in the lake of fire.

GC 485
The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited" (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. Thus the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment in the final eradication of sin and the deliverance of all who have been willing to renounce evil. {GC 485.3}

This passage states that Satan bears the guilt of the sins HE HAS CAUSED God's people to commit. It says he will suffer the full penalty of sin. Of course the penatly he suffers is the penalty for his own sin. How could it be otherwise?

Your idea would have us throw away Scripture in favor of the SOP. That's not the way it should work. Instead we should compare inspired writings with one another with the conviction that they are *all* inspired, rather than throw something away in favor of another.

There are many passages in both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy which state that Jesus Christ is the sin-bearer.

TE: How do you get that Jesus' death explains only the soul anguish of the wicked from this?

MM: There is nothing arbitrary about God punishing and destroying the wicked in the lake of fire.

You didn't address my question. Please take another look. I'm dealing with the fact that the quote from the Desire of Ages is dealing with issues that are not on the surface having anything to do with soul anguish. The quote talks about the wicked being utterly destroyed. How does Jesus' death help the angels understand that when the wicked are utterly destroyed that it won't be due to an arbitrary act of God?

TE: If Jesus exhausted the penalty of sin, then how could Satan bear it?

MM: Jesus earned the right to own our sin and second death. He did not eliminate them. He took them to heaven with Him. He will eliminate them with Satan in the lake of fire.

If Jesus exhausted the penalty of sin, then how could Satan bear it? What needs to be addressed is that if Satan bears the penalty for our sin, then Jesus could not have exhausted it.

TE: This doesn't address the question. The question is how would it be just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do?

MM: How is it just and right for Jesus to volunteer to pay our sin debt? How God can justify saving and forgiving us? What is right and fair about it?

Why are you asking this? I anticipated your asking this, and answered this. I wrote:

I'm guessing you might ask in return how is it just and non-arbitrary for Jesus Christ to have suffered for what He didn't do. The answer to this is that Jesus voluntarily and graciously accepted the responsibility for our sin. "Let the punishment fall on Me."(ST 6/27/00)

Didn't you see this?

It’s easier for me to understand Satan dying with my sin and second death than it is for me to understand how it is just for Jesus to die for my sin and second death.

If it is easier for you to understand how it is just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do, then you should be able to answer the question, which so far you haven't. The question still remains, how would it be just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do?

TE: Is Jesus' real blood in the heavenly sanctuary?

MM: Yes. It’s in His veins and arteries. Our sin and second death is quarantined in His body and blood.

So does Jesus prick Himself so He can apply the bood in His veins and arteries to our sin? How does His literal blood actually get placed on our sins? Didn't Jesus already shed His blood? Isn't it His shed blood which gets applied? If it was shed, then it wouldn't be in His veins and arteries, would it?

TE: Is this really what you meant? Or do you mean all the sins man could have committed? God is not capable of committing sin.

MM: Yes, I believe Jesus became sin for us. He suffered soul anguish as if He Himself had sinned in the same way He suffered as if He Himself were guilty of committing our sins.

You didn't address my question. Your previous post spoke of Christ suffering for all the sin He as God would be capable of commiting. But God cannot commit sin. So I asked if this was a typographical error, or if you really meant to refer to God's sinning. You do agree that God cannot commit sin, don't you?

TE: Would have sufficed for what?

MM: If suffering soul anguish in the same way the wicked will suffer it in the lake of fire is sufficient to uproot the seed of rebellion then Jesus need not have suffered and died. The fact only His death could uproot evil is evidence there is more to it than merely suffering for the sins of mankind.

You didn't address my question. I pointed out the the death of the wicked or an angel would not have addressed the issues of the Great Controversy, which involve the nature of Satan's government vs. God's, and Satan's character vs. God's character. My question is how the death of a person or angel could answer the questions Satan raised.

TE: Before addressing your post, I've asked you at least three times now if God hated Christ as He was dying on the cross.

MM: God hates sin, and Jesus became sin for us. It is a mystery, right? That’s my final answer.

TE: How does Jesus' death help the angels understand that when the wicked are utterly destroyed that it won't be due to an arbitrary act of God?

MM: You believe God punishing and destroying the wicked in the lake of fire is arbitrary. I don’t. You believe Jesus demonstrated all there is to know about the punishment and destruction of the wicked in the lake of fire. I disagree.

TE: If it is easier for you to understand how it is just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do, then you should be able to answer the question, which so far you haven't. The question still remains, how would it be just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do?

MM: Because he tempted us to do it.

TE: Your previous post spoke of Christ suffering for all the sin He as God would be capable of commiting.

MM: He suffered soul anguish as if He Himself had sinned in the same way He suffered as if He Himself were guilty of committing our sins. It’s both.

TE: My question is how the death of a person or angel could answer the questions Satan raised.

MM: If Jesus only suffered in the same way a man of angel suffers then there was nothing special about His suffering. But if He suffered in a way only the Son of God could suffer, in a way men and angels cannot suffer, then the suffering or men and angels would not have sufficed. So, what made Jesus' suffering better?

TE: Before addressing your post, I've asked you at least three times now if God hated Christ as He was dying on the cross.

MM: God hates sin, and Jesus became sin for us. It is a mystery, right? That’s my final answer.

That's not an answer. You're just asking another question. What's the mystery? That God hated Christ? What?

TE: How does Jesus' death help the angels understand that when the wicked are utterly destroyed that it won't be due to an arbitrary act of God?

MM: You believe God punishing and destroying the wicked in the lake of fire is arbitrary.

The definition of arbitrary is by individual discretion. This is as opposed to cause and effect. I believe the wicked suffer and die as a result of their sin. They reap what they have sown. God performs no special action to cause them to die. God is just Himself, and they die, because they choose to separate themselves from Him. This is what it means to say that the process is non-arbitrary. This is just what the Spirit of Prophecy says:

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. (DA 764)

Your merely saying your view is not arbitrary does not make it not arbitrary. It is arbitrary because it rejects the principle the Spirit of Propechy outlines here. You would have the wicked dying not as "the inevitable result of sin," not as a result of choosing to separate from God, not by being slayed by the light of His glory, but as a special, or imposed, or arbitrary (these are all synonymns) act of God.

I don’t.

Yes you do! You believe that God, by an act of individual discretion, executes the wicked. This is saying the same thing. "Arbitrary" = "Act of individual discretion." This is the primary definition of the term, and this is how I'm using it. I'm not using it to mean "capricious," or "on a whim," as I think you are taking it.

Here's Webster's, primary defintion:

depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law (the manner of punishment is arbitrary)

Once again, this is precisely describing what you believe. God uses His individual discretion as a judge to execute punishment. This is arbtirary (see defintion).

You believe Jesus demonstrated all there is to know about the punishment and destruction of the wicked in the lake of fire. I disagree.

I beleive what the Spirit of Prophecy states about this. She says:

All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." Testimonies for the Church, 8:286.

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

This says that the death of Christ explained the destruction of the wicked, so that when they are destroyed there will no longer be the evil seed of doubt in their minds which would have been there had Christ not died. Indeed, I do believe what she said here is true.

TE: If it is easier for you to understand how it is just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do, then you should be able to answer the question, which so far you haven't. The question still remains, how would it be just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do?

MM: Because he tempted us to do it.

Which is what he suffers for. His part in the thing. His guilt. This is just.

TE: Your previous post spoke of Christ suffering for all the sin He as God would be capable of commiting.

MM: He suffered soul anguish as if He Himself had sinned in the same way He suffered as if He Himself were guilty of committing our sins. It’s both.

God is not capable of commiting any sin. I asked if you agreed with this. Do you? You stated otherwise. I'm guessing it was just a miss-step. Am I right?

TE: My question is how the death of a person or angel could answer the questions Satan raised.

MM: If Jesus only suffered in the same way a man of angel suffers then there was nothing special about His suffering. But if He suffered in a way only the Son of God could suffer, in a way men and angels cannot suffer, then the suffering or men and angels would not have sufficed. So, what made Jesus' suffering better?

Jesus' suffering was "better" because it addressed the questions Satan had raised. My question to you still remains. How could the death of a person or angel answer the questions Satan raised? I suggest, there's no way it could. Hence for you to suggest that an angel or mere person could have suffered or died in the place of Jesus is pointless.

We're getting away from the original context of the question, because you haven't answered it. When you refuse to answer questions and I have to reask them 3 or 4 or 6 times, then this happens. Why not just answer the question the first time it's asked? That would make the conversation flow much better.

TE: Your merely saying your view is not arbitrary does not make it not arbitrary. It is arbitrary because it rejects the principle the Spirit of Propechy outlines here.

MM: On this we shall have to disagree.

TE: God is not capable of commiting any sin. I asked if you agreed with this. Do you? You stated otherwise. I'm guessing it was just a miss-step. Am I right?

MM: For someone who believes Jesus could have failed I’m surprised you’re having such a hard time with this insight. "He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." {FLB 49.4}

TE: My question to you still remains.

MM: I am unable to answer the question to your satisfaction.

1.Do you disagree that God punishes on the basis of His individual discretion?

2.MM, God cannot sin. God cannot even be tempted:

God cannot be tempted by evil. (James 1:13)

It was as a man that Jesus was tempted, and it was a man that Christ could have sinned.

3.You wrote: The suffering Jesus experienced far exceeded what man or angel is capable of experiencing. And this display was necessary to uproot the seed of rebellion forever. Otherwise the mere punishment and death of a man or angel would have sufficed.

I responded: Would have sufficed for what? The problem is that the nature and results of sin were not known, and neither the character of God, nor the height and depth of His love. How could the death of a man or angel have clarified any of these issues?

You have refused to answer this question, so I'll accept this as an admission that your original statement, that "otherwise the mere punishment and death of a man or angel would have sufficed" is untrue, or at least not defesible, since you're not defending it.