Are there any excuses for sinning?

The following post is imported here to discuss the question - Are there any excuses for sinning?

I believe the Bible promises that teach there is no excuse for sinning include temptations that are not only "common" to mankind but that they include every temptation known to mankind. However, I also realize certain temptations do not apply to certain people at certain times in their life:

For example, the temptation to violate the Sabbath is a temptation common to mankind. Again, there is no such thing as a temptation that is not common to mankind. Nevertheless, certain people are unaware of the Sabbath commandment, thus, they violate the Sabbath ignorantly. As such, their sin does not involve temptation.

But, the question is - Is their sin excusable? If so, then can it also be forgiven without the atoning blood of Jesus?

Do you mean can a person experience forgiveness, or pardon, without the atoning blood of Jesus? If so, then the answer is no. There was no other way for man to be reconciled to God than through the sacrifice of Christ.

I think that Paul, John and the others spoke to that fact that those who exercise faith in Christ will overcome sin.

Good point, Tom. But the question remains - Is their sin excusable? Are sins of ignorance excusable?

I'm not sure what you mean be excusable.



Does this address your question?

Sort of. Jesus said something similar - "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth." (John 9:41) So, is it correct to conclude there are two categories of sin:

1. Non-accountable sin, uncondemned sin.

2. Accountable sin, condemned sin.

Is uncondemned sinning excusable? That is, in the Sabbath example you quoted, was incorrectly commencing the Sabbath a sin? Was there an excuse for their sin? Does this kind of sinning require atonement? If not, why not?

Or, in this case, was it considered not sinning? Does the phrase "there is no sin" (in your quote) mean they were not sining? And, as such, is atonement necessary? If so, why?

The following inspired insights are helpful:

The tempter's agency is not to be accounted an excuse for one wrong act. Satan is jubilant when he hears the professed followers of Christ making excuses for their deformity of character. It is these excuses that lead to sin. There is no excuse for sinning. A holy temper, a Christlike life, is accessible to every repenting, believing child of God. {DA 311.3}

The honest seeker after truth will not plead ignorance of the law as an excuse for transgression. Light was within his reach. God's Word is plain, and Christ has bidden him search the Scriptures. He reveres God's law as holy, just, and good, and he repents of his transgression. {Ev 372.2}

Men and women frame many excuses for their proneness to sin. Sin is represented as a necessity, an evil that cannot be overcome. But sin is not a necessity. {FLB 219.4}

No man without his own consent can be overcome by Satan. The tempter has no power to control the will or to force the soul to sin. He may distress, but he cannot contaminate. He can cause agony, but not defilement. The fact that Christ has conquered should inspire His followers with courage to fight manfully the battle against sin and Satan. {GC 510.3}

But upon him who looks to Jesus as the author and finisher of his faith, Satan's temptations have no power. He cannot cause to sin the one who will accept by faith the virtues of Him who was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. {Mar 91.3}

Is uncondemned sinning excusable?

If sins of ignorance do not incur the frown of God, doesn't that mean they are excusable? God is, in fact, excusing them on the grounds of ignorance, isn't He?

That is, in the Sabbath example you quoted, was incorrectly commencing the Sabbath a sin?

In the same sense that ignorantly keeping Sunday is a sin, it is.

Was there an excuse for their sin? Does this kind of sinning require atonement? If not, why not?

Given that "atonement" is "at-one-ment," if one is ignorant of doing something wrong, then it doesn't seem that anything needs to be done for at-one-ment, other than making known the error to the ignorant party.

Or, in this case, was it considered not sinning? Does the phrase "there is no sin" (in your quote) mean they were not sining? And, as such, is atonement necessary? If so, why?

In the context of the quote, "there is no sin" means they were not sinning. Given "atonement" means "at-one-ment," nothing needed to be done, because the ignorant party was not aware that there was a problem, and the other party, God, was not upset either, so the unity of the two parties was not impacted, apart from the blessing that would be missed by not being "in" the Sabbath, so to speak. So all that needs to be done is for the ignorant party to be made aware of what they were ignorant of.

TE: If sins of ignorance do not incur the frown of God, doesn't that mean they are excusable? God is, in fact, excusing them on the grounds of ignorance, isn't He?

MM: But who was more innocent of sinning ignorantly than Eve? She was deceived. Plus, she was unfamiliar with the character of God. She didn't know God well enough to see through Satan's deception. She was not armed and fortified with a saving knowledge of God's character. Who was more ill prepared to resist Satan's temptations than Eve? Whose sin was more excusable than hers? And, yet, God made atonement for her sin. Why?

Also, if a sin of ignorance is excusable, why did God require atonement for it in the OT?

And, what about this insight - "Could excuse for it [sin] be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin." (GC 492) How can God afford to excuse sin? Wouldn't it cease to be sin? Which would mean they aren't doing anything wrong, right?

MM: But who was more innocent of sinning ignorantly than Eve? She was deceived. Plus, she was unfamiliar with the character of God. She didn't know God well enough to see through Satan's deception. She was not armed and fortified with a saving knowledge of God's character. Who was more ill prepared to resist Satan's temptations than Eve? Whose sin was more excusable than hers? And, yet, God made atonement for her sin. Why?

Obviously there's something different about Eve's sin and keeping the Sabbath only until 6:00, don't you agree? Let me establish that we agree on this point first before commenting further, because if you disagree, then my comments won't really fit.

Also, if a sin of ignorance is excusable, why did God require atonement for it in the OT?

After becoming aware it is wrong, it is no longer excusable. The atonement process was a way to let the offending party know that the sin, which was done in ignorance, was forgiven. As EGW pointed out, where there is no light, there is no sin, and no frown of God. Once the error is known, then it must be rectified.

Here's a simple example, don't know how good it is. Let's say you are doing something in our dialogs that bothers me, but I don't mention it. You keep doing it. Eventually I mention it. You say, "sorry" and quit doing it.

During the time of my silence, you were sinning (so to speak) in ignorance. As soon as you became aware you were "sinning," in order to atone for what you did (keeping in mind that atonement is at-one-ment; that is to say, in order to keep our relationship good) you needed to acknowledge what you did and quit doing it. Before you were aware of what you were doing, then you didn't need to do anything.

I should have made myself the fall guy. Oh well, too much typing to undo.


And, what about this insight - "Could excuse for it [sin] be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin." (GC 492) How can God afford to excuse sin? Wouldn't it cease to be sin? Which would mean they aren't doing anything wrong, right?

I think a problem coming into play here is that the word "sin" is being used to mean different things, depending on the context. When EGW says that where there is no light, there is no sin, she is speaking of one thing. When she says "could excuse for it [sin] be found, or cause be shown for its existence" she is speaking of another.

Do you agree with this?

Anyway, to answer in a general way your question regarding why God cannot excuse sin, sin causes damage to the ones who sin, as well as to one's relationship with God (because of the sin; not because God quits loving the sinner). There is healing that must take place.

Nowhere do we see more clearly the effect of sin than with Adam and Eve. They knew they had done wrong. Their relationship with God was damaged, as well as their own. Their view of God had changed drastically. They became afraid of Him. There was major healing that needed to take place.

If God were to excuse their sin, the damage caused by sin would not have been dealt with. The healing would not have taken place. Sin would have resulted in death.

Something had to be done to set things right. So God gave His only begotten Son. He sacrificed from Himself in order to accomplish an at-one-ment.

I don't think God ever excuses any sin in the sense that He says "No problem" and forgets it. Rather, the one who sins ignorantly is covered by Christ's blood, as typified by the morning and evening sacrifices. When the sin is revealed, then he must offer the appropriate sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus, which address mostly ignorant sins. Known sin, OTOH, was usually addressed by stoning.

Yes, there is something different.


Indeed, I am the chief of sinners. I doubt anyone is more irritating to you than my ownself. Ha! Actually, things have improved wonderfully over the years.

At any rate, didn't God require a "continual burnt offering" morning and evening, a kind of catch all sacrifice to atone for sins of ignorance? I mean, there were sacrifices prescribed for every kind of sin, right? But the continual burnt offering was in addition to them. That's why it makes sense to conclude it atoned for sins of ignorance (before they realized they were sinning).

Since God requires atonement for sins of ignorance, before and after they realize they are sinning, how can we say sins of ignorance (before they realize they are sinning) are excusable? Since it requires atonement, how can it be excusable?

By the way, your example of me "sinning" applies to human relationships, that is, you can excuse my sin. But God cannot excuse sins of ignorance. True, He doesn't treat them the same way as intentional sinning, but, nevertheless, it still requires atonement.


Yes, shes is speaking of two different things. However, I think there is a common principle - God cannot excuse sin. He can pardon it, He can wink at it, but He cannot excuse it.

Also, I agree with you that the cross influences us morally to love God and to obey His commandments. However, there is more to it. Someone must die for the sins we commit, must pay our sin debt, must suffer our punishment.

AG 139
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7}

Indeed, I am the chief of sinners. I doubt anyone is more irritating to you than my ownself. Ha! Actually, things have improved wonderfully over the years.

That's true. I look forward to your posts now. I didn't used to have that emotion.

At any rate, didn't God require a "continual burnt offering" morning and evening, a kind of catch all sacrifice to atone for sins of ignorance? I mean, there were sacrifices prescribed for every kind of sin, right? But the continual burnt offering was in addition to them. That's why it makes sense to conclude it atoned for sins of ignorance (before they realized they were sinning).

If we look at things in terms of a broken relationship, which end of the relationship is broken? Ours, clearly. We see from Jesus Christ how God is. Consider the parable of the prodigal son. While the son was a "long way off" the father was looking for him. He would allow the son to even get off his rehearsed speech. That he came back was enough.

That's the way God is. Actually God is even better than that. EGW tells us in SC that this parable, as wonderful as it is, still falls short in describing God's love and character. It's even better than the parable is!

So God does whatever is necessary *for us* to be healed, or set right. He does what is necessary, regardless of the cost to Himself, in order to fix our relationship with Him.

The continual sacrifices were a testament to that. It was a way of letting us know that we don't even need to worry about the sins we commit in ignorance.

Since God requires atonement for sins of ignorance, before and after they realize they are sinning, how can we say sins of ignorance (before they realize they are sinning) are excusable? Since it requires atonement, how can it be excusable?

*We* are the ones that require atonement. The atonement is for our benefit, not God's. He is already right with us. We need to get right with Him. The message in Scripture is "be ye reconciled to God."

Whatever God requires is for our own benefit. That is, He specifies for us what is needed in order for our relationship with Him to be fixed. Not as an arbitrary requirement He has in order to be satisfied, but because He knows what we need in order to be fixed from the damage sin brings.

By the way, your example of me "sinning" applies to human relationships, that is, you can excuse my sin. But God cannot excuse sins of ignorance.

Sure He can. He can do whatever He wants. He is the one that has been sinned against. He can pardon any sins He pleases. His attitude is made plain by Christ, who prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Didn't God answer that prayer? In so doing, God excused their sins of ignorance.

True, He doesn't treat them the same way as intentional sinning, but, nevertheless, it still requires atonement.

We need the peace of mind that comes from knowing that we cannot, by ignorance, sin God away, so to speak.

asg: Known sin, OTOH, was usually addressed by stoning.

MM: True. The Levitical Law did not tolerate willful sinning. It prescribed ether death or excommunication. Fortunately, though, God is not bound by law. Mercy trumps justice when God so desires.

Numbers
15:30 But the soul that doeth [ought] presumptuously, [whether he be] born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
15:31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity [shall be] upon him.

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Right on!


Yes, God is a doting, loving, compassionate Father, not willing that any should perish, doing whatever it takes to save everyone. No doubt about it. But He cannot turn a deaf ear or a blind eye to sin. Sinning is a terrible thing, whether committed willfully or in ignorance. God sent Jesus to save us from sinning by revealing to us, through His life and death, 1) the character of God and 2) the hideousness of sin, self, and Satan. Both revelations are required to save us.

"It was a way of letting us know that we don't even need to worry about the sins we commit in ignorance." I wouldn't take it that far, Tom. It implies it doesn't matter. But it does. That's why we are counseled to pray - "Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." (Psalm 139:23, 24)


If it is us, and not God, who requires blood sacrifice for sins of ignorance (before and after we realize we are sinning), why did God command it in the law?

Besides, saying it is we who demand it, makes it sound optional, like God wouldn't expect it if we didn't demand it, that it would be all right with Him if we wanted to drop it out of the law.

Where in the Bible does it depict Moses telling God, "Oh, by the way, we want to institute blood sacrifices for sins of ignorance, hope you're okay with that."


Jesus was able to ask God to forgive them because He was spilling His blood for them. It is the perfect life and death of Jesus that gives God the right to forgive sinners.


True. It is the perfect life and death of Jesus that gives us such assurance, blessed assurance.

PS - Are you going to address the first and last parts of my previous post? You left it out in this post.

In context, what I wrote was clear. I was talking about God's feelings/emotions/attitude towards us, and our relationship with Him. We do not need to worry that whatever wrong things we are doing will alter God's attitude towards us, or damage our relationship. God will take care of things. As long as we are willing to do His will, at the right time God will reveal light, as we need it.



Why wouldn't He? Where else would He have put it?



Sin has damaged us, and we need to be healed. God knows exactly what we need in order to be healed. God's requirements are tailored to our need. But God doesn't need anything. He's already fine.



God is the one who knew what we needed, not Moses. Moses recorded what God told him to write down.

Tom, is there a reason why you aren't addressing some of the points I raised in my last tow posts? In my last post I wrote, "PS - Are you going to address the first and last parts of my previous post? You left it out in this post." Now, again, in your last post you left out parts.

MM, sorry for whatever I left out. Please either repost the parts I didn't respond to, or give me the post #. Thanks.

Tom, you overlooked the first and last part of this post.

First Part:

Yes, there is something different. Is there more you'd like to say on it? End of First Part


Indeed, I am the chief of sinners. I doubt anyone is more irritating to you than my ownself. Ha! Actually, things have improved wonderfully over the years.

At any rate, didn't God require a "continual burnt offering" morning and evening, a kind of catch all sacrifice to atone for sins of ignorance? I mean, there were sacrifices prescribed for every kind of sin, right? But the continual burnt offering was in addition to them. That's why it makes sense to conclude it atoned for sins of ignorance (before they realized they were sinning).

Since God requires atonement for sins of ignorance, before and after they realize they are sinning, how can we say sins of ignorance (before they realize they are sinning) are excusable? Since it requires atonement, how can it be excusable?

By the way, your example of me "sinning" applies to human relationships, that is, you can excuse my sin. But God cannot excuse sins of ignorance. True, He doesn't treat them the same way as intentional sinning, but, nevertheless, it still requires atonement.

Last Part:

Yes, shes is speaking of two different things. However, I think there is a common principle - God cannot excuse sin. He can pardon it, He can wink at it, but He cannot excuse it.

Also, I agree with you that the cross influences us morally to love God and to obey His commandments. However, there is more to it. Someone must die for the sins we commit, must pay our sin debt, must suffer our punishment.

AG 139
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7} End of Last Part

You also overlooked the parts indicated in red in this posts:


Right on!


This paragraph: Yes, God is a doting, loving, compassionate Father, not willing that any should perish, doing whatever it takes to save everyone. No doubt about it. But He cannot turn a deaf ear or a blind eye to sin. Sinning is a terrible thing, whether committed willfully or in ignorance. God sent Jesus to save us from sinning by revealing to us, through His life and death, 1) the character of God and 2) the hideousness of sin, self, and Satan. Both revelations are required to save us.

"It was a way of letting us know that we don't even need to worry about the sins we commit in ignorance." I wouldn't take it that far, Tom. It implies it doesn't matter. But it does. That's why we are counseled to pray - "Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." (Psalm 139:23, 24)


If it is us, and not God, who requires blood sacrifice for sins of ignorance (before and after we realize we are sinning), why did God command it in the law?

Besides, saying it is we who demand it, makes it sound optional, like God wouldn't expect it if we didn't demand it, that it would be all right with Him if we wanted to drop it out of the law.

Where in the Bible does it depict Moses telling God, "Oh, by the way, we want to institute blood sacrifices for sins of ignorance, hope you're okay with that."

From here to the end of the post:

Jesus was able to ask God to forgive them because He was spilling His blood for them. It is the perfect life and death of Jesus that gives God the right to forgive sinners.


True. It is the perfect life and death of Jesus that gives us such assurance, blessed assurance.

PS - Are you going to address the first and last parts of my previous post? You left it out in this post.

Jesus was able to ask God to forgive them because He was spilling His blood for them. It is the perfect life and death of Jesus that gives God the right to forgive sinners.

What gives God the right to pardon sins is that He is God. Remember that God offered to pardon Lucifer time and time again, yet Christ had not died. Therefore God is not dependent upon the death of Christ in order to forgive.

We are the dependent ones! Not God.

Tom:We need the peace of mind that comes from knowing that we cannot, by ignorance, sin God away, so to speak.

MM:True. It is the perfect life and death of Jesus that gives us such assurance, blessed assurance.

PS - Are you going to address the first and last parts of my previous post? You left it out in this post.

You asked to address the part in red, which is what I just addressed above, and now this, which asks me if I'm going to address what you wrote!

Regarding the first part, I'd have to go back over my original post, and remember my train of thought, and I don't have time to do that right now. Probably we've already covered the point by now I wanted to make anyway.

Yes, shes is speaking of two different things. However, I think there is a common principle - God cannot excuse sin. He can pardon it, He can wink at it, but He cannot excuse it.

To excuse is to pardon, as I was using the word. If someone steps on your toe, you may excuse, or pardon, them. Same thing. What you are addressing is something different, which I didn't bring up, which is the idea that sin is OK; excuse in that sense. Of course no one is saying that.

Also, I agree with you that the cross influences us morally to love God and to obey His commandments. However, there is more to it. Someone must die for the sins we commit, must pay our sin debt, must suffer our punishment.

There's the question of what this means. If it were a forensic problem, then Christ would have had to die in order for Lucifer to be forgiven just as much as man. Yet God offered Lucifer pardon many times, without Christ having died. So the issue is not forensic. It has to be something that involves human beings specifically.

I'd like to mention why I enjoy dialogging with you. You are very persistent, which allows one to really dig into things. So often the conversations are so short, just a couple of things back and forth, and it's hard to get much out of that. These are deep issues, and it takes time to get to the bottom of things. So I appreciate your willingness to keep discussing something.

I know some observers may think that nothing is happening, that we just keep repeating the same things, but I've had an insight just recently that I hadn't seen so clearly, and I doubt I would have (at least, not for some time) without this discussion. The insight is that how we view foreknowledge is logically connected to how we view the atonement, and vice versa.

MM: "As long as we are willing to do His will, at the right time God will reveal light, as we need it." Amen!


Are you agreeing with me, then, that God requires blood sacrifices for sins of ignorance before and after we realize we are sinning? If so, how, then can you say God excuses sins of ignorance before we realize we are sinning?


Are you agreeing with me, then, that it is optional, that God wouldn't expect it if we didn't demand it, that blood sacrifices are not require to heal us, to atone for our sins?


But the record doesn't reflect what you believe. It reveals God commanding blood sacrifices to atone for sin. Nowhere does it imply God was simply giving us what we subconsciously demanded.

Are you agreeing with me, then, that God requires blood sacrifices for sins of ignorance before and after we realize we are sinning? If so, how, then can you say God excuses sins of ignorance before we realize we are sinning?

If God required sacrifices for sins of ignorance, then He would have required it for Lucifer, right? (It is your position that Lucifer was sinning ignorantly until his final decision, correct?).

I don't see what sense it would make for God to require a sacrifice for something someone did that they didn't know was wrong. After a person discovered there error, then they were to confess their sin and bring a sacrifice. God is interested in intelligent worship. A confession of things we did that we have no knowledge of their being wrong is not intelligent worship.

Are you agreeing with me, then, that it is optional, that God wouldn't expect it if we didn't demand it, that blood sacrifices are not require to heal us, to atone for our sins?

I think your question here is very confusing. I can't say I agree with this, for that reason. I wrote at length before. I think what I wrote was clear. I agree with what I wrote.

But the record doesn't reflect what you believe. It reveals God commanding blood sacrifices to atone for sin.

What I've been presenting is what atonement is. It is "at-one-ment." The sacrifices were necessary for atonement. This is true. But this does not mean they were necessary to placate God, or something like that.



Nowhere does it imply God was simply giving us what we subconsciously demanded.

I haven't said anything at all like this. How is it that you are jumping from what I wrote to something altogether different? Perhaps you could give some sort of thought process, how you got from what I wrote to what you're asking about, because without some understanding of your thought process, I really don't have any way to respond. It's like I write something like, "On sunny days it's nice to go for a walk," and you respond, "Nowhere does it imply that the sky is purple."

MM: I think it was Rosangela who believes Lucifer was guilty of sinning ignorantly before he chose to rebel openly. I do not believe he was guilty of sinning ignorantly. Instead, I believe he was wrestling with weird thoughts and feelings, things he was unfamiliar with. As such, he was innocent of wrongdoing.

Sinning is not excusable. And, once Lucifer launched into open rebellion, the instant he was guilty of sinning, atonement was impossible. "But no provision had been made to save those [angels] who should venture to transgress His law." (SR 18)

The morning and evening continual burnt sacrifice atoned for sins of ignorance, the sins people committed before they realized they were sinning. Other sacrifices applied once they became aware of the fact they were sinning ignorantly. They were no sacrifices for willful sinning. People were either stoned or excommunicated.


MM: Clear to you, no doubt, because you know exactly what you think about it. But it wasn't clear to me, which is why I asked you to clarify further. I'll rephrase the question, hopefully it will help.

Why did God require the death of Jesus? Was it to atone for our sins? Or, was it the only way God could get it through our sin darkened and deceived minds that He is loving and trustworthy? Or, both?


MM: I was referring to your idea that it was we who required the death of Jesus to make atonement for our sins, that God was merely giving in to our demands. The biblical record doesn't reflect this idea.

"But this does not mean they were necessary to placate God, or something like that." What does it mean, then? Why was the death of Jesus necessary to atone for our sins? What do the following inspired insights mean to you?

AG 139
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7}


MM: Now that you have made it clear you do not agree with my comment, please take a minute to explain why you believe we, not God, demanded the death of Jesus to atone for our sins. Thank you.

MM: I think it was Rosangela who believes Lucifer was guilty of sinning ignorantly before he chose to rebel openly. I do not believe he was guilty of sinning ignorantly. Instead, I believe he was wrestling with weird thoughts and feelings, things he was unfamiliar with. As such, he was innocent of wrongdoing.

According to the Spirit of Prophecy, Lucifer was guilty of sin:



Sinning is not excusable. And, once Lucifer launched into open rebellion, the instant he was guilty of sinning, atonement was impossible.

I've never seen the sense of your idea. We are told that Lucifer was offerred pardon again and again. It is those who sin that need pardon. You would have God offerring Lucifer pardon as long as he didn't need it, but as soon as he really needed it, no offer of pardon would be forthcoming. This doesn't strike you as odd?

At any rate, Lucifer was sinning before his final rebellion, which simply reading the record of what he was doing should make clear, but in addition to that there's the SOP statement saying as much. If you continue to read page 319, it is clear that Satan did not rebel until long after the opportunity was given to confess his sin. So Lucifer was guilty of sin long before he rebelled.


"But no provision had been made to save those [angels] who should venture to transgress His law." (SR 18)

There is no salvation in transgression for either man or angel. But God will restore one who repents, whether man or angel, just as we are told that again and again Lucifer was offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission.

The morning and evening continual burnt sacrifice atoned for sins of ignorance, the sins people committed before they realized they were sinning.

First of all, how could atonement possibly take place if the one needing the atonement is unaware he's done anything wrong? The very first step is the offending party must be made aware of his error. This is just common sense.

Let's say, for example, you are bothering me be some expression you use as we are dialogging. This is upsetting me, so that our relationship is damaged. How can are relationship be fixed unless I make you aware of the thing you are doing which is causing the problem?

Secondly, the research I did dealing with the meaning of this ceremony is that it symbolized continual consecration and dependence upon God. Where do you get the idea that is was for sins one is commiting of which one is unaware?

Thirdly, here is a quote from the Spirit of Prophecy which presents the idea I've been sharing.



Other sacrifices applied once they became aware of the fact they were sinning ignorantly. They were no sacrifices for willful sinning. People were either stoned or excommunicated.

I'm a bit surprised you would make a statement like this, MM. The law is full of provisions for sin not done ignorantly which does not involve stoning or excommunication. I could quote pages and pages demonstrating this. Here's just a small sampling.



Quote:
MM: Are you agreeing with me, then, that it is optional, that God wouldn't expect it if we didn't demand it, that blood sacrifices are not require to heal us, to atone for our sins?

TE: I think your question here is very confusing. I can't say I agree with this, for that reason. I wrote at length before. I think what I wrote was clear. I agree with what I wrote. \:\)

MM: Clear to you, no doubt, because you know exactly what you think about it. But it wasn't clear to me, which is why I asked you to clarify further. I'll rephrase the question, hopefully it will help.

Why did God require the death of Jesus? Was it to atone for our sins? Or, was it the only way God could get it through our sin darkened and deceived minds that He is loving and trustworthy? Or, both?

Both. But bear in mind that atonement means "at-one-ment." It is a way to bring us to God, as Peter puts it. Our sin has estranged us from God, so God did what was necessary so we could be reconciled to Him. Not Him to us, but us to Him. Here's something from Waggoner on this.



Here's something from EGW:



I know you are fond of EGW, but you don't seem to be well acquainted with E. J. Waggoner, which I think you should be, given that EGW spoke so highly of him. She said that he could teach righteouness by faith better than she, and that he was given a message to convey, the message of righteousness by faith. I just though of mentioning it because it seems to me that it couldn't help but help you (or anyone) to better understand righteousness by faith.

Quote:
MM: But the record doesn't reflect what you believe. It reveals God commanding blood sacrifices to atone for sin.

TE: What I've been presenting is what atonement is. It is "at-one-ment." The sacrifices were necessary for atonement. This is true. But this does not mean they were necessary to placate God, or something like that.

Quote:
While God has desired to teach men that from His own love comes the Gift which reconciles them to Himself, the archenemy of mankind has endeavored to represent God as one who delights in their destruction. Thus the sacrifices and the ordinances designed of Heaven to reveal divine love have been perverted to serve as means whereby sinners have vainly hoped to propitiate, with gifts and good works, the wrath of an offended God.(PK 685, par. 2)

MM: I was referring to your idea that it was we who required the death of Jesus to make atonement for our sins, that God was merely giving in to our demands. The biblical record doesn't reflect this idea.

Giving in to our demands? Where did you get such an idea? I've never said anything like this.

I really don't understand where you get some of the ideas you get from what I write. I'm 100% positive I've never written anything to the effect that God was giving in to our demands.

"But this does not mean they were necessary to placate God, or something like that." What does it mean, then? Why was the death of Jesus necessary to atone for our sins? What do the following inspired insights mean to you?

AG 139
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

On this one I would ask why was it necessary for the death penalty to be executed. It says that justice demanded it. For you, I think this means it would not be just for God to forgive sin without death. But nowhere in Scripture is that idea present. There is a text which says that Christ gave His life a ransom for man, and a text that says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, but these texts do not say why.

That God does not need death in order to pardon is clear from what happened to Lucifer. Lucifer sinned, as seen in the above SOP quote, long before he rebelled. He was offered pardon again and again, on the condition of repentance.

That God does not need death in order to pardon is clear from the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. For example, in the parable of the prodigal son, we see the father forgiving sin without death. When Jesus was about to die, He revealed the heart of God, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

In addition to this idea not making sense, as I pointed out, it is not Scriptural. As Waggoner pointed out, the idea that God had to be propitiated in order to believe is an idea unwarranted in Scripture. The sacrifice comes from God, to propitiate us, the same point EGW makes in the PK statement.

Furthermore, the interpretation of sacrifice you are suggesting simply did not exist at the time of Paul's writings. There is nothing in contemporary literature that gives this penal idea to the meaning of the sacrifices. Given how people contemporary to Paul understood sacrifice, there's no way it could have had this penal idea, an idea which wasn't developed until a millineum later.

The Eastern Orthodox church, which broke off from the Catholic church before this idea was introduced, *still* does not have the penal idea.


1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7}

Quote:
MM: Nowhere does it imply God was simply giving us what we subconsciously demanded.

TE: I haven't said anything at all like this. How is it that you are jumping from what I wrote to something altogether different? Perhaps you could give some sort of thought process, how you got from what I wrote to what you're asking about, because without some understanding of your thought process, I really don't have any way to respond. It's like I write something like, "On sunny days it's nice to go for a walk," and you respond, "Nowhere does it imply that the sky is purple."

MM: Now that you have made it clear you do not agree with my comment, please take a minute to explain why you believe we, not God, demanded the death of Jesus to atone for our sins. Thank you.

I've written at great length about this in the past. In my other computer, which I hope before the end of the decade to have back up and running, I should have some things saved, but I don't have access to this now. I wrote a fair amount here above. This will have to suffice for now. Basically if you ask the question, what is the problem that needs to be fixed, and how does the sacrifice of Christ fix it, that leads to the answer. That the problem isn't penal is shown by how God handled Lucifer's case, as well as by the life and character of Jesus Christ, in addition to not being an historically viable position.

Keeping in mind that I haven't followed this thread closely, I would have to disagree with this sentiment. Most of the sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus were for sins of ignorance.

Lev 4:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD...

I can see the point of a broken relationship not needing to be fixed since there was no rebellion, but the fact remains that blood was required. That's why I don't think the "relationship paradigm" is complete. Leviticus is full of cases where blood was required even though there was no rebellion.

Tom, your comments above seem to indicate you believe God was willing to excuse Lucifer's "sin", that He was willing to pardon without requiring the death of Jesus. Is that right?

1.The sacrifices were required *after* the sin of ignorance became known. That is, at the time the sin of ignorance was being committed, the person committing the sin did not know he was doing wrong, and no sacrifices were required or offered. *After* the person became aware that he had been doing wrong, *then* the sacrifice for the sin of ignorance was required.

2.Blood was required, but the purpose of the blood was to fix the relationship. Once the relationship is fixed, then everything is OK. But the relationship could not be fixed without blood.

3.What is necessary to fix the relationship is repentance and submissions. This requires a knowledge of God's true character and of his love. Lucifer had these things, so God offered him pardon on the condition of repentance and submission. However man did not know the love of God, or His character, so it was necessary that God reveal these things to man.



The whole purpose of Christ's ministry was the revelation of God.

From the Spirit of Prophecy we read:



It looks to me like this is saying.

1.Lucifer was given an opportunity to confess his sin, which was long before his banishment from heaven.
2.Lucifer continued to sin, for a long time ("long was he retained in heaven").
3.God continued to offer him pardon.
4.Finally Lucifer made his final decision.

During all of this, there is no mention of Christ having to die. So it appears that Christ's death is not an arbitrary requirement God has (i.e. a requirement set up by His discretion), but is needed to meet a need that man has, which Satan did not have.

The following seems to agree with this assessment:

Tom, thank you for clarifying your belief. I totally disagree with it, but it is nice to know what you believe.

1. The idea that God can, in cases involving FMAs who are very familiar with His character, simply excuse sinning is unsettling.

2. The idea that the only reason Jesus shed His blood was to win our trust and obedience is unsettling.

3. The idea that God does not require death as payment for sinning is unsettling.

4. The idea that God will not punish and destroy sinners in the lake of fire is unsettling.

1.God never excuses sin. He pardons sinners.
2.I don't know why it would be unsettling that the death of Jesus would result in obedience. If God has obedient children, what more does He need?
3.I don't know why it would be unsettling that God is willing to forgive us without requiring a payment of some sort.
4.God will punish and destroy sinners in the lake of fire. We don't disagree regarding that this will happen, but how.

MM, a question I'd like to ask you is how you can maintain that Lucifer did not sin before his rebellion when the Spirit of Prophecy says that Lucifer was given the chance to "confess his sin" long before his rebellion?

TE: 1. God never excuses sin. He pardons sinners.

MM: What about sins of ignorance?

TE: MM, a question I'd like to ask you is how you can maintain that Lucifer did not sin before his rebellion when the Spirit of Prophecy says that Lucifer was given the chance to "confess his sin" long before his rebellion?

MM: Here's the quote again: "Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous."

You seem to assume God would have pardoned Lucifer without shedding the blood of Jesus. This interpretation, however, is not biblical. God has never pardoned sin without shedding the blood of Jesus.

There is no biblical reason to assume God would have pardoned Lucifer without shedding the blood of Jesus. Neither did Sister White say it. You are only assuming she does based on what you believe is logical deduction.

God does not excuse sin, if "excuse" means what I think it means when you are using it, or were using it when you were using it before (perhaps you have a different meaning in mind now). If you ask your question in more detail, I'll give a more detailed answer.



You didn't answer my question, right? I asked, "how you can maintain that Lucifer did not sin before his rebellion when the Spirit of Prophecy says that Lucifer was given the chance to 'confess his sin' long before his rebellion?" and you reproduced the quote that said what I said it said, and then talked about something else.

I'll address what you brought up, but I'd still like to know the answer to my question.

You say, "God has never pardoned sin without the shedding of blood" but I just presented a case to you where He did (or was willing to). So your statement is false. There is nothing anywhere in the quote, or anywhere else, for that matter, in the many pages where the Spirit of Prophecy discusses this, that says that Christ would need to die for Lucifer. In fact, she explicitly explains why not:



We know from the Spirit of Prophecy that Lucifer sinned, and that over and over again God offered Him pardon on condition of repentance and submission. We know the Spirit of Prophecy nowhere says that Christ had to die for Lucifer in order for God to offer Him pardon. Indeed, we know for a fact, that Christ did not die for Lucifer, and that God did offer him pardon. I'm not deducing anything here by logic; just pointing out what she wrote.

Also I'm not understand why you bring up "logical deduction." Even if it were true that what I said were true on the basis of logical deduction, that would be just as valid a method for determining truth as any other method. God is a God of reason and logic. He invites us to reason together.

The Spirit of Prophecy often speaks of the importance of having sound arguments to present, and of the importance of having positions that can bear up under close scrutiny.

MM: Here's what I mean by the word "excuse": To make allowance for; overlook: "Readers must excuse the author's youth and inexperience." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/excuse

Does God make allowance for (i.e. overlook) sins of ignorance? Or, does He require the shed blood of Jesus to pardon and atone for sins of ignorance?


MM: As you know, I do not believe her use of the word "sin", in this context, means Lucifer was guilty of sinning willfully. Instead, I believe it means his behavior was sinful.


MM: The reason she doesn't say Jesus would have shed His blood to make good on God's offer to pardon Lucifer is because Lucifer hadn't sinned yet. Once he was guilty of sinning there was nothing God could do to save him. There was no provision in place to save angels should they venture to transgress God's law.

The moment he was guilty of sinning was the moment he was cast down to earth. God did not, as you assert, offer to pardon him without blood after he was guilty of sinning. No! The instant he was guilty of sinning was the instant God could do nothing to save him. Offering to pardon a person guilty of the unpardonable sin is lunacy.

SR 18
Their high and happy state had been held upon condition of obedience to the law which God had given to govern the high order of intelligences. But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law. {SR 18.2}

Acts 17:30 says that in times, God winks. The Spirit of Prophecy tells us that where there is no light, there is no sin. When sin comes, then comes the frown of God. What do you understand these statements to mean?

In the Old Testament, the sacrifices for sins of ignorance were to be made *after* they were discovered.

Regarding God's requiring blood, *we* are the ones who require it to be set right with God. God so loved us, He *gave* His Son.





You pointed out that the idea that Lucifer sinned in ignorance was Rosangela's idea, that you didn't think Lucifer sinned at all. Now you are saying that Lucifer did not sin willfully. How is this different than Rosangela's position?

EGW wrote, in the portion I quoted:



Also this:



I'm not understanding why you don't think this is willful sin. Is it because you don't think it is sin, or because you don't think it is willful? I'm not understanding how one could not perceive the following to be describing willful sin: "he resorted to misrepresentation, even of the words and acts of the Creator."
Also it seems to me that seeking one's own honor, leading others to devote themselves to oneself instead of to God is describing willful sin as well.



She says that before Lucifer was banished from heaven, he was given opportunity to confess his sin. So clearly he had sinned, since he was given opportunity to confess it. Also, she says that Lucifer was offered pardon again and again, that he was long retained in heaven *after* he was given opportunity to confess his sin.



This makes no sense. God offered Lucifer pardon again and again. If what you said were true, then that would have God offering Lucifer pardon again and again when he didn't need it (not having sinned), yet refusing to offer it as soon as he actually needed it! Wouldn't that be rather cruel?



Please note the account of what happened:



She says that Lucifer was NOT banished from heaven immediately upon sinning, but was given opportunity to confess it. She makes it clear that Lucifer remained in heaven a long time after being given the opportunity to confess his sin, doesn't she? What is it you think she is saying here?



You seem to be equating "guilty of sinning" with "the unpardonable sin." But if you read EGW's account, you will see she describes the process as gradual, not immediate. She does not say "as soon as Lucifer was guilty of sin, he was banished from heaven," but instead that Lucifer was given opportunity to confess his sin, was long retained in heaven, and over and over again was offered pardon. So clearly Lucifer had not committed the unpardonable sin, sin God was offering to pardon it.

MM: God winks at sins of ignorance. He does not hold us accountable or count us guilty. Instead, He holds Jesus accountable. His death pays our sin debt as if He was guilty. No light, no sin means the same thing.


MM: True. But the continual burnt offering covered sins of ignorance before they were discovered. I realize you reject this insight. So, on this point, we disagree.


MM: On this we totally disagree.


MM: My bad. I do not believe her use of the word "sin", in this context, means Lucifer was guilty of sinning. It means his behavior was sinful. But he wasn't guilty of sinning simply because he was trying to sort out his strange thoughts and feelings. She says, "He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God." {PP 39.1} True, his tactics were sinful, but God tolerated them because at the time it wasn't clear to Lucifer they were sinful. God doesn't tolerate it now because they have been shown to be sinful.


MM: Sister White says there was nothing God could to do to save angels once they chose to transgress the law. Thus He banished them from heaven. But you, on the other hand, are saying angels sinned for a "long time" in heaven, and that God tolerated their place in heaven in spite of knowing there was nothing He could do to save them. It doesn't make sense to me.

SR 18
Their high and happy state had been held upon condition of obedience to the law which God had given to govern the high order of intelligences. But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law. {SR 18.2}

DA 761
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. {DA 761.5}

How does holding Jesus accountable mean the same thing as saying where there is no light, there is no sin, and no frown of God. If there is no frown of God, why does anyone need to be held accountable? These seem like two diametrically opposed things, rather than the same thing.



I'm not aware of any evidence that what you are suggesting is true.



It seems to me I'm saying the following:





She says Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess his sin, so that means he sinned, doesn't it?



No, not me. Ellen White.

She wrote that Lucifer was given an opportunity to confess his sin. She says that after this Lucifer was long retained in heaven. It's right in the text I quoted to you. I'll present it again:



I just quoting a bit of it to save space, but I included the full quote previously.

MM: The principle "no light, no sin" is referring to sinning ignorantly. Do you agree?

It is the substitutionary death of Jesus that gives God the legal right to withhold condemnation and punishment for sins committed in ignorance. Do you agree?


MM: Sacrifices atone for sinning. The innocent dies in place of the guilty 1) to pay the sin debt of death, and 2) to make reconciliation between God and the guilty. Specific sacrifices cover specific sins. It was not up to the sinner to decide which sacrifice to offer to cover his particular sin. The law regulated his decision, including what to sacrifice once he becomes aware of a sin he had been committing ignorantly. However, the continual burnt offering did not atone for sins committed intentionally. Instead, it was a general sacrifice offered continually to cover sins committed ignorantly.


MM: It is true that Satan attempts to lead people to believe God "delights in their destruction". As a result some people have "perverted" the meaning of the sacrifices God required. The truth, of course, is quite the opposite. Your quote, however, does not teach God did not require the death of Jesus as a substitute to pay our sin debt of death.

The SOP is clear on this point. She wrote, "Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed." She also wrote, "In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin."

AG 139
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7}

Jesus died in our place because Justice (God) demanded it. His death also serves to demonstrate the self-sacrificing love of God, which can motivate us to love and obey Him. "Death must come in consequence of man's sin." "Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed." That's the way of it.


MM: It doesn't mean he sinned in the sense He was guilty of sinning. It means his tactics, the way he was going around talking about God, were sinful. "He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God." He thought what he was doing was right and good, that it would result in improving heaven for everyone. It did not occur to him, at that time, that what he was doing was sinful. He was not going around trying to undermine God, or to unseat Him, or to lead rebellion. He was simply doing what he thought was necessary to improve heaven. He was not guilty of sinning.


MM: Of course that's what she wrote. I'm not disputing it. What I am objecting to is your interpretation, your application of what you think it means. You think it means the angels ventured to transgress the law long before they were cast out, and that God tolerated their place in heaven, until they openly rebelled, in spite of knowing there was nothing He could do to save them. I totally disagree with this interpretation.

1. What is the difference between transgressing the law and rebelling openly?

2. Why does the one necessitate banishment from heaven, whereas the other can be tolerated in heaven?

3. Why can't the one be pardoned without the shed blood of Jesus, whereas the other can?

Of course.



I don't see how even you could think this was true, as you perceive Lucifer's sin to be a sin of ignorance, don't you? (I'm talking about where EGW says that Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess his sin, before being banished from heaven.)

I don't see how your comment about sacrifices atoning for sinning supplies any evidence that the sacrifices held each morning and evening were for sins of ignorance.

Regarding Ellen White's quote, she is contrasting the perception with the reality. The reality is that God, from His own love, provided the sacrifice that reconciles us to Himself. This is as opposed to the wrath of an offended God needing to be propitiated.

This sentiment agrees with what Waggoner wrote:





If He was given the opportunity to confess his sin, it means he must have committed sin. Anyone can see that.



MM, I'm not seeing how you can assert these things given what she actually wrote. She wrote:



Please notice that Lucifer was "shown to be wrong" and that it was *after* this that he was "long retained in heaven." He offered excuses, blamed God, misrepresented God's statements, and so forth. And *still* he was not banished from heaven. All of this is right there in the quote I provided. It's 4SP 319.

So Lucifer was not acting innocently, trying to improve heaven for everyone. He was trying to excuse his own actions, and by misrepresentations convince people to believe him instead of God.




Have you read 4SP 319? I'm not understanding how you're getting the conclusions you are.



1.Instead of changing their wrong course, they manifest great indignation against the reprover, as if he were the sole cause of difficulty. (She has Satan's actions specifically in mind here; see the paragraph previous to the one this comes from.)

2.Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin.

3.Satan chose to carry his points at all hazards. To sustain his charge of God's injustice toward him, he resorted to misrepresentation, even of the words and acts of the Creator.

4.Long was he retained in Heaven. Again and again was he offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission.

Satan was clearly shown to be wrong, but rather than admit his error, he resorted to misrepresentation of God. Even after this, he was long retained in heaven.



This is your interpretation of what I've said. These are your words, not mine.

What I have said is what Sister White said. She said that Lucifer was clearly shown to be wrong. She said that he was given an opportunity to confess his sin. She said that instead of doing this, he sought to justify his actions by misrepresenting God. She said that Lucifer, even after this, was long retained in heaven, and over and over again offered pardon.

These are all her words. I haven't offered the interpretation you've suggested. I've been repeating these words of hers.



You mean in general, or in Lucifer's case?



I think I can best answer this with a quote:



Lucifer was long retained in heaven, and again and again offered pardon. There came a point when there was nothing more God could do to help him.



It's not a question of God's not being able to pardon. God is always willing to forgive. The problem is the sinner so hardens His heart that He no longer is willing or able to respond to the Holy Spirit.

What requires the shed blood of Christ is the revelation of God's love and character:



God would have given Christ as a sacrifice for Lucifer as readily as for man if it would have done any good.

Tom, you seem to believe God was willing to pardon Lucifer, without shedding the blood of Jesus, well after he was convinced he was wrong, well after he began openly rebelling.

I disagree. God would not, could not, pardon Lucifer after he began openly rebelling. He was beyond experiencing genuine repentance. He was guilty of committing the unpardonable sin when he chose to continue rebelling after he was convinced he was wrong. There was no way God could have pardoned him.

You're making a statement without considering the evidence, as far as I can see (you didn't cite anything). I laid out for you what EGW wrote:

1.Lucifer was clearly shown to be wrong, and given a chance to confess his sin.
2.Instead of doing this, Lucifer sought to justify himself, and went so far as to misrepresent God, His actions and words.
3.Lucifer was not immediately banished from heaven after being shown to be wrong and given an opportunity to confess his sin, nor even after his misrepresentations against God.
4.Long was he retained in heaven, and offered pardon over and over again on the condition of repentance and submission.

None of these points are inferences or logical deductions. There are all straight from 4SP 319. Do you agree? If you don't, please tell me which point you disagree with and why.

What you stated above, about what I seem to believe, is inaccurate. What I have been saying is just what I laid out, in points 1 through 4. I said nothing about Lucifer being in open rebellion. He was still hiding his actions. EGW makes that point clear, and I've never said anything different.



I agree with this, assuming the "began openly rebelling" is referring to Lucifer's final decision, which is to say, at the point in time here, where he fully committed himself against God:

Aren't the following quotes (taken from your recent posts) referring to the same time period in Lucifer's downward path?

"But he chose to carry his points at all hazards." 4P 319

"But pride forbade him to submit." GC 496

Mike, isn’t this what a sin of ignorance is? What’s the difference between this and a sin of ignorance?

About sins of ignorance, Ellen White says,

“Some will plead that they lived up to the best light that they had, and did not know that they were sinners before God. Therefore they claim that they were guiltless, and have nothing to repent of. But the word of God was plain, and all who had a prayerful anxious desire to understand it might have known what was truth; and for this sin of ignorance God will demand an offering as truly as in the days of Moses,--even the offering of a broken and contrite heart.” {ST, July 22, 1880 par. 12}

And wasn’t the offering of a broken and contrite heart what Lucifer should have offered to God?

However, just because an offering for sin was required in a specific case in the levitical law, this doesn’t necessarily mean that that was a sin for which Christ must have died. For instance, when a woman had a baby, or when a leper was declared clean, an offering for sin was also required.

Now, one thing is sure. Ellen White says,

“He [Satan] and his followers repented, wept and implored to be taken back into the favor of God. But no, their sin, their hate, their envy and jealousy, had been so great that God could not blot it out. It must remain to receive its final punishment.” {1SG 18.1}

I understand that if their sin had not been so great (that is, if they hadn’t rebelled), it could have been blotted out.

R: Mike, isn’t this what a sin of ignorance is? What’s the difference between this and a sin of ignorance?

MM: In the beginning, when Lucifer began to think and feel things weren't quite right, I don't think he was sinning. Even now it's not a sin to questions God, to wonder about things that don't seem quite right. The difference is, Lucifer was perfect. He knew God perfectly.

In the beginning, it was a perfect being who began circulating among the angels questions and concerns about God. How a perfect being does this is very much different than how we do it now. There is no comparison. And, it was the first time anyone ever questioned the status quo. It was new and strange. But it was a perfect being who began to entertain such thoughts and feelings. It's not the same as when fallen beings do it. Such thoughts and feelings were new. And strange.

I think God tolerated Lucifer's quest to understand the new and strange thoughts and feelings that were consuming his time and attention because He felt it was healthy and right. True, God knew exactly where it was going and where it would end up, that is, in rebellion, but God didn't discourage Lucifer's initial quest. There was nothing wrong with him exploring questions and concerns. To ignore them, or pretend they didn't exist, would have been worse.

In order to explore his new and strange thoughts and feelings Lucifer played, as it were, the devil's advocate. In other words, he suggested outrageous things simply to consider all angles of the question. We do something similar today. However, the more he did this the more he believed it. When Jesus and certain angels began to plead with him to cease and desist, he dug in his heels and pressed the issues more intensely. During a general assembly, when God confirmed Jesus' high and lofty status, Lucifer felt the thrill of being in harmony with heaven. But he still wasn't finished with trying to understand his new and strange thoughts and feelings.

Nevertheless, he wasn't convinced he was wrong. He felt like was simply trying reason out the questions and concerns that were on his mind. Playing the "devil's advocate" seemed right and reasonable. He wasn't rebelling against God. By this time, though, his thoughts and feelings began to include pride and selfishness, which were also new and strange for a perfect being. He wrestled with them, with all of it, in agony and confusion. He was simply trying to understand his new and strange thoughts and feelings. Something didn't feel quite right, and he was determined to get to the bottom of it.

Now, were his tactics, during this stage, wrong? Were they sinful? Was playing the "devil's advocate", trying to explore all the angles related to his questions and concerns, sinful? Remember, Lucifer is perfect and sinless at this stage. We're talking about a sinless being playing the "devil's advocate", asking hard and hurtful questions about someone he loves dearly. Sister White testifies that Lucifer, at this stage, "He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God."

GC 4495
Lucifer himself did not at first see whither he was drifting; he did not understand the real nature of his feelings. But as his dissatisfaction was proved to be without cause, Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong, that the divine claims were just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels. He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had forsaken his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office. But pride forbade him to submit. He persistently defended his own course, maintained that he had no need of repentance, and fully committed himself, in the great controversy, against his Maker. {GC 495.3}

Rosangela, do you agree with Tom, that God would have pardoned Lucifer's "sin", without shedding the blood of Jesus, if he had repented and submitted to His authority? If so, does this also mean, as Tom believes, that God did not shed the blood of Jesus because justice demands death for mankind's sin?

AG 139
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7}

No. Here's the first one:



This is speaking of the point in time where Lucifer was shown to be wrong. Several paragraphs later she writes:



Notice she writes "He was not immediately dethroned when he first ventured to indulge the spirit of discontent and insubordination, nor even when he began to present his false claim and lying representations before the loyal angels. Long was he retained in Heaven."

This is not the same time as Lucifer's chance to confess, but is long after. ("long was he retained in heaven."

Here's the GC statement:



You can see that this is the same period of time as the "after" statement from 1SG 319, not from the time he was first given an opportunity to confess his sin.

Here's the reason Satan could not be taken back:



It wasn't an arbitrary decision on the part of God that Satan's sin had been too great, but Satan had ruined himself.



Satan wasn't sorry for what he did, nor recognized what he did was wrong, but didn't like the results of his decision.

His character had not changed. That God correctly judged this is seen by the following:



This is the way it is with sin in general. It ruins those who partake of it. God's grace is greater than any sin. His ability to forgive is not limited. But sin hardens our hearts, and there comes a time when we are no longer willing or able to respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit. The unpardonable sin is unpardonable not because God is not will or able to pardon, but because the sinner is no longer willing or able to receive it.

MM, don't you remember our conversations about this? ("our" being you me an Rosangela.) Well, I can't be too hard on you because I forget a lot of these things as well.

At first Rosangela wasn't sure if Lucifer had sinned or not. Then she came across the 1SG 319 statement, and came to the conclusion that Lucifer had sinned, but it wasn't a sin which required the death of Christ (which is necessary conclusion, in order not to agree with my argument).

She doesn't agree with my argument.

Tom, here's how I see it (the relationship between the two different paragraphs in 4SP 319-320):

1. "Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous. But he chose to carry his points at all hazards."

NOTE: When Lucifer was finally convinced of his sin and wrongdoing, which happened just before he was banished from heaven, God offered him one last opportunity to submit to His authority, but Lucifer chose to rebel openly instead.

2. "Long was he retained in Heaven. Again and again was he offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission. Such efforts as God alone could make, were made to convince him of his error, and restore him to the path of rectitude."

NOTE: The expression "long was he retained in heaven" is not limited to time after Lucifer was convinced of his sin and wrongdoing. It began with when he "first ventured to indulge the spirit of discontent", that is, before he was convinced ofhis sin and wrongdoing. Also, the context of this paragrpah places the moment Lucifer was finally convinced of his sin and wrongdoing in the future.

MM: Aren't the following quotes (taken from your recent posts) referring to the same time period in Lucifer's downward path?

"But he chose to carry his points at all hazards." 4SP 319

"But pride forbade him to submit." GC 496

TE: No.

---

TE: "But he chose to carry his points at all hazards." This is speaking of the point in time where Lucifer was shown to be wrong.

"But pride forbade him to submit." You can see that this is the same period of time as the "after" statement from 1SG 319, not from the time he was first given an opportunity to confess his sin.

MM: So, are you agreeing with me, that the two statements refer to the same time period - "after" Lucifer was convinced of his sin and wrongdoing and chose to rebel anyhow?

For reference purposes here is 4SP 319-320

Satan had excited sympathy in his favor by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ. Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous. But he chose to carry his points at all hazards. To sustain his charge of God's injustice toward him, he resorted to misrepresentation, even of the words and acts of the Creator. {4SP 319.1}

Here, for a time, Satan had the advantage; and he exulted in his arrogated superiority, in this one respect, to the angels of Heaven, and even to God himself. While Satan can employ fraud and sophistry to accomplish his objects, God cannot lie; while Lucifer, like the serpent, can choose a tortuous course, turning, twisting, gliding, to conceal himself, God moves only in a direct, straight-forward line. Satan had disguised himself in a cloak of falsehood, and for a time it was impossible to tear off the covering, so that the hideous deformity of his character could be seen. He must be left to reveal himself in his cruel, artful, wicked works. {4SP 319.2}

He was not immediately dethroned when he first ventured to indulge the spirit of discontent and insubordination, nor even when he began to present his false

320

claim and lying representations before the loyal angels. Long was he retained in Heaven. Again and again was he offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission. Such efforts as God alone could make, were made to convince him of his error, and restore him to the path of rectitude. God would preserve the order of the heavens, and had Lucifer been willing to return to his allegiance, humble and obedient, he would have been re-established in his office as covering cherub. But as he stubbornly justified his course, and maintained that he had no need of repentance, it became necessary for the Lord of Heaven to vindicate his justice and the honor of his throne; and Satan and all who sympathized with him were cast out. {4SP 319.3}

Mike, the explanation that seems to make more sense to me is that sin exposes the sinner to the wrath of God, while the wrath of God is not visited upon sins of ignorance. I've already quoted these passages in the past:

"Not one of those ten precepts can be broken without disloyalty to the God of heaven. The least deviation from its requirements, by neglect or willful transgression, is sin, and every sin exposes the sinner to the wrath of God." {1SM 218.2}

"God does not deal thus with His creatures. His wrath is never visited upon sins of ignorance." {ST, November 1, 1899 par. 7}

Tom, here's how I see it (the relationship between the two different paragraphs in 4SP 319-320):

1. "Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous. But he chose to carry his points at all hazards."

NOTE: When Lucifer was finally convinced of his sin and wrongdoing, which happened just before he was banished from heaven, God offered him one last opportunity to submit to His authority, but Lucifer chose to rebel openly instead.

2. "Long was he retained in Heaven. Again and again was he offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission. Such efforts as God alone could make, were made to convince him of his error, and restore him to the path of rectitude."

NOTE: The expression "long was he retained in heaven" is not limited to time after Lucifer was convinced of his sin and wrongdoing. It began with when he "first ventured to indulge the spirit of discontent", that is, before he was convinced ofhis sin and wrongdoing. Also, the context of this paragrpah places the moment Lucifer was finally convinced of his sin and wrongdoing in the future.

Here is the description of when Lucifer was shown to be wrong:



Notice the underlined part. Lucifer resorted to misrepresentation of the words and acts of God after being clearly shown to be wrong. This is instead of recognizing his error.

Now let's go to the part where Lucifer made his final decision:




Notice that it says he was not immediately dethroned when he began his false claim and lying representations. Even if you make "long was he retained in heaven" refer to the period starting from when Lucifer began to indulge a spirit of discontentment and insubordination, it is still clear that there was a period of time after Lucifer was given a chance to confess his sin and his final decision to go against God. This is made clear by here saying "nor even when he began to present his false claim and lying representations before the loyal angels."

TE: "But he chose to carry his points at all hazards." This is speaking of the point in time where Lucifer was shown to be wrong.

"But pride forbade him to submit." You can see that this is the same period of time as the "after" statement from 1SG 319, not from the time he was first given an opportunity to confess his sin.

MM: So, are you agreeing with me, that the two statements refer to the same time period - "after" Lucifer was convinced of his sin and wrongdoing and chose to rebel anyhow?

No, they are clearly not referring to the same time. The first one is referring to the time when Lucifer was clearly shown to be wrong. The second one is referring to the time when Lucifer made his final decision.

That Lucifer's final decision was not at the same time when he was clearly shown to be wrong is the whole point of the paragraphs of 319. She is showing how patient was in dealing with Lucifer.

I don't understand how anyone can see these actions as either not being sin at all, or merely sins of ignorance. His course was "with convincing clearness shown to be be wrong" yet "he chose to carry his points at all hazards. To sustain his charge of God's injustice toward him, he resorted to misrepresentation, even of the words and acts of the Creator."

He was sinning (assuming resorting to misrepresentation of the words and acts of the Creator in order to sustain his charge of God's injustice toward him is sin), and he knew what he was doing (since he had been with convincing clearness shown to be wrong).

I disagree. They are referring to the same time.

She wrote:

1.Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous. But he chose to carry his points at all hazards. To sustain his charge of God's injustice toward him, he resorted to misrepresentation, even of the words and acts of the Creator.

At this point in time, we'll call it "A," Lucifer was clearly shown to be wrong, and given an opportunity to confess his sin. In response to this, Lucifer resorted to misrepresentation, in order to sustain his charge of God's injustice toward him.

A couple of paragraphs later she writes:

2. He was not immediately dethroned when he first ventured to indulge the spirit of discontent and insubordination, nor even when he began to present his false claim and lying representations before the loyal angels. Long was he retained in Heaven. Again and again was he offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission.

We'll call this time "B". How do we know "B" is after "A"?

First of all, it says "He was not immediately dethroned when he first ventured to indulge the spirit of discontent and insubordination, nor even when he began to present his false claim and lying representations before the loyal angels."

The part being underlined goes back to "A". Lucifer was not banished from heaven when "A" occurred.

Secondly she writes "Long was he retained in Heaven. Again and again was he offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission." We see from this that Lucifer was not given just one chance to confess his sin, but "again and again" he was given this chance. "A" is referring to the first chance. "B" is after the "again and again" had passed.

If "A" and "B" were the same period of time, she would have had to have written something like this:

"Lucifer was clearly shown to be wrong. He was given an opportunity (that is, one opportunity) to confess his sin. But he refused, etc."

Instead she wrote, "Long was he retained in Heaven. Again and again was he offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission."

By this I assume you believe sins of ignorance do not require the shed blood of Jesus, that God can pardon them without shedding the blood of Jesus. If this is true, why, then, did God require people to shed the blood of innocent animals to atone for their sins of ignorance after the fact, after they became aware of it?

Does this imply God would have bee required to shed the blood of Jesus if Lucifer had repented of his "sin" after the fact, after he became aware of it?

Also, what is the basis of sins of ignorance? Is it not a lack of knowledge? If so, how can we say Lucifer, a being fully aware of the truth, sinned ignorantly in heaven?

Also, do you agree with Tom that the fact God would have pardoned Lucifer's willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus clearly teaches God does not require blood in order to satisfy the just and loving demands of the law?

The fact that Satan said God was dealing unjustly with him, that God was unjust, and that the law was restrictive of liberty, were, all of them, false claims and lying representations. This, however, does not necessarily mean that these were intentional lies – it was the way how he saw things at that time.

However, after he saw he was wrong and fell, he began to lie intentionally.

“Satan had excited sympathy in his favor by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ. Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous. But he chose to carry his points at all hazards. To sustain his charge of God's injustice toward him, he resorted to misrepresentation, even of the words and acts of the Creator.” {4SP 319.1}

Notice that at first his false representations were about the unjust attitude of the Creator toward him (as he saw it); after he fell (“chose to carry his points at all hazards”), he began to misrepresent (or twist) even the words and acts of the Creator – that is, he began to tell open lies.


“A” is referring to the last chance.

Mike, it's too late here, but tomorrow morning I plan to reply to your post.

She says that Lucifer was clearly shown to be wrong, and given the opportunity to confess his sin. *After* that, Lucifer resorted to the misrepresentations. *After* resorting to misrepresentations, she says that Lucifer made his final decision.



The "misrepresentations" are the intentional misrepresentations Lucifer resorted to after being clearly shown to be wrong.

Also, note that she writes, "Again and again was he offered pardon." She doesn't just say that Lucifer had one chance to confess his sin, but "again and again" he was given this opportunity.

She also says that he was long retained in heaven, not only after he first began to indulge the spirit of discontent and insubordination, but "nor even" when he began his misrepresentations.

Here she uses the word "misrepresentation" in regards to what Lucifer was doing:



This is *after* he was shown to be wrong, but before being banished from heaven. (see the "nor even" statement).

He was sentenced to being banished from heaven after he had fallen, of course. And he fell after his final refusal to confess his sin and submit to God's authority. Then he began to resort to open lies - to misrepresentation of even the words and acts of the Creator. Before his fall, he had been offered the opportunity to repent several times.


Here she is recapitulating the story, and goes back in time.

R: The fact that Satan said God was dealing unjustly with him, that God was unjust, and that the law was restrictive of liberty, were, all of them, false claims and lying representations. This, however, does not necessarily mean that these were intentional lies – it was the way how he saw things at that time. However, after he saw he was wrong and fell, he began to lie intentionally.

Tom, I agree with Rosangela's understanding of these paragraphs. God labored long with Lucifer to help him understand his new and strange thoughts and feelings. He was not guilty of "intentional lies". They were simply new and strange thoughts and feelings he was wrestling with to understand. He was not convinced they were right and true.

However, I also happen to believe he was not guilty of sinning ignorantly. He wasn't ignorant of what he was doing. He was fully aware of the fact that he was wrestling with thoughts and feelings that would lead to unrest and rebellion if determined to be right and true. But it wasn't a sin to try and "reason" them out.

Thus, he wasn't guilty of sinning until the moment he was convinced his conclusions were wrong and he chose to pursue them anyhow "at all hazards" because "pride forbade him to submit" to God's authority. He was allowed to remain in heaven for a short time after he reached this point of no return.

The explanation doesn't work, because it assumes that Lucifer was given to confess his sin was his only opportunity. She writes that

1.Lucifer was given an opportunity to confess his sin.
2.THEN he resorted to misrepresentations, false claims, and so forth, to justify his actions.
3.THEN, eventually, he was banished from heaven.

She makes this as clear as can be made by saying



She wrote "NOR EVEN' when he began to present his false claim and lying misrepresentations, which was AFTER he was given an opportunity to confess.



Here was see Lucifer was given an opportunity to confess his sin, and then resorted to misrepresentation, which misrepresentation did not immediately lead to his being banished from heaven. (from the "nor even" statement above).

However, this is even more clearly seen by noting that she wrote that "again and again" Lucifer was offered pardon. Lucifer was not just given one chance to confess his sin, but was given this opportunity "again and again."

So Lucifer was given many opportunities to confess his sin. Do you agree with this? (not the whole thing I've laid out here, but just this one point that Lucifer was given many opportunities to confess his sin).



This doesn't make sense because God gave Lucifer the opportunity to confess his sin. If Lucifer was not guilty of having committed any sin, then he would not have been given the opportunity to confess his sin, nor offered pardon "again and again."

I don't understand how you can read what she wrote and not see that Lucifer sinned. I don't understand how she could have put it any more clearly than writing that he was given an opportunity to confess his sin and offered pardon. How could he confess sin if he had not sinned? How could he be pardoned if he had not sinned?

This is continuing from the paragraph where it says Lucifer was offered pardon again and again (from 4SP 319). Notice it says "he stubbornly justified his course, and maintained he had no need of repentance," and that this is *before* he was banished from heaven.

How did Lucifer stubbornly justify his course?



So, once again, the timing of events is seen to be:

a)Lucifer was clearly shown to be wrong.
b)Lucifer was given an opportunity to confess his sin.
c)Lucifer stubbornly justified his course, by misrepresentation.
d)Lucifer was eventually banished from heaven.

One other point to mention is in regards to this sentence:



The "lying representations" here could not have been in ignorance, because lying necessitates the intent to deceive. There is no such thing as ignorantly presenting "lying representations."

Lucifer was not banished when he first began presenting these lying representations, which is to say, there was a period of time where Lucifer was acting with intent to misrepresent God, during which he was not banished from heaven, which is to say, he was not sinning in ignorance.

You are equating "lying representations" with "misrepresentation, even of the words and acts of the Creator." This is incorrect, as I had pointed out that this quote shows:

“Satan had excited sympathy in his favor by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ.[= lying representations, before his fall; at this point there were several opportunities of repentance] Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous. [= last opportunity] But he chose to carry his points at all hazards. [= fall] To sustain his charge of God's injustice toward him, he resorted to misrepresentation, even of the words and acts of the Creator. [= misrepresentation, after his fall]” {4SP 319.1}


No, this just means they were false, not necessarily that they had the intent to deceive.

According to Webster's, "lying" means "false; not truthful."

Let's deal with this first. What you are asserting is incorrect. A lie does not have to do with the veracity of what is said, but with the intent of the person telling the lie. For example, let's say I think you are at home, but you really aren't. A friend asks, "Where is Rosangela?" I say, "She's not at home." This is a lie.



Back to EGW:



Note that "as he stubbornly justified his course, and maintained that he had no need of repentance" implies that time elapsed. So does "again and again he was offered pardon."

According to your point of view, pardon is not needed for sins of ignorance. So since Lucifer was offered pardon "again and again," it must be the case that these were not sins of ignorance that Lucifer was being offered pardon for. Therefore from the time that Lucifer was first offered pardon up until his final decision not to repent, Lucifer was sinning, and not ignorantly.

I'll reply tomorrow, but where have I said this?

You wrote this to MM:



If the least deviation from the requirements of the law is sin, and exposes the sinner to the wrath of God, and God's wrath is never visited upon sins of ignorance, then doesn't it follow that God does not need to pardon them? If there is no exposure to wrath, no "least deviation from its requirement by neglect or willful transgression," why would there be a need for pardon?

EGW wrote that where there is no light, there is no sin, and no frown of God. Again, if there is no light, and no sin, and no frown of God, why would there be a need for pardon?

That according to your view, pardon is not needed for sins of ignorance was something I inferred from what you presented to MM.

Also, it stands to reason that God was not offering Lucifer pardon for something he was doing that he didn't know was wrong. That's just common sense. Why would God offer to pardon Lucifer for something Lucifer didn't know was wrong?

First God convinces us that we've done something wrong, and then He moves upon our hearts to repent. That's the way it works.

TE: So Lucifer was given many opportunities to confess his sin. Do you agree with this? (not the whole thing I've laid out here, but just this one point that Lucifer was given many opportunities to confess his sin).

MM: No. He was granted "an" opportunity to confess his sin after he was convinced of wrongdoing. "But he chose to carry his points at all hazards."

"Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous. But he chose to carry his points at all hazards."

MM: Here's the sequence:

1. First, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong.

2. Then, he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin.

"Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, [1] his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, [2] and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous. But he chose to carry his points at all hazards."

Lucifer was not guilty of wrongdoing before his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong. Again, he was simply investigating new and strange thoughts and feelings, asking hard questions, exploring every angle, even playing the "devil's advocate". Such tactics and behavior were, under the circumstances, pardonable.

Over a long period of time, Jesus, God, and angels tried to help Lucifer see things clearly. Eventually, he reached a crossroads, he was convinced his conclusions were wrong, either he had to reject them and be retained or retain them be rejected. Pride forbade him and he chose to pursue his points at all hazards. His fate was sealed, his destiny fixed.

MM: As of yet you haven't replied to this post.

That doesn't make sense, MM, because Lucifer was offered pardon again and again, not just once. If he was only offered one chance to confess his sin, then it would follow that he was only offered pardon once. A condition for pardon was the confession of his sin, thus each offer of pardon included an opportunity for Lucifer to confess his sin.

Of course he was guilty of wrongdoing. The fact that he was given an opportunity to confess his sin is proof that he was doing something wrong, or else there wouldn't have been any sin to confess.



These included "lying representations," which implies intent. Lucifer's "hard questions" were NOT sincere. They were an attempt to win converts to his side. This is in the EGW account.

Anyway, the fact that Lucifer was offered pardon and allowed to confess his sin demonstrates that he had sinned. Isn't this super obvious?



This doesn't match what she wrote. It's not simply that his conclusions were wrong (which he knew all the time; he knew that he did not deserve to be in the place of God), but his actions were wrong.



Indulging the spirit of discontent and insubordination was wrong. So was presenting his false claim and lying representations before the loyal angels.

Bearing false witness is one of the ten commandments. Breaking this commandment is sin.



Since he was given an opportunity to confess his sin, there had to be sin for him to confess. This sin is specified here as exciting sympathy in his favor by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him, the "lying representations" EGW speaks of in the other quote.

The statement does not say “lie,” but “lying representations,” and “lying” means false, untrue. She had already used “false” in the sentence, and obviously in order not to repeat the word, she used the word “lying.”


We have already discussed this at length. Suffice it to say, as Mike pointed out, that the passage says, “Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous.”
If this had been the first opportunity, Ellen White most probably would have said “several opportunities.” In this last opportunity, “his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong.” The clear implication is that now he saw quite clearly – he was convinced - that he was in the wrong.


Because this doesn’t mean that the person wasn’t wrong. Instead of neglect or willful transgression, the sin may be due to mental blindness, and when the person sees his mental blindness, of course he/she admits to be wrong.


God was trying to show or convince him that he was wrong, and of course when he admitted it, he would need to be pardoned.

Sins of ignorance sometimes involve neglect, which means the person is not entirely exempt from guilt.


I don’t think so. Ellen White implies his sin could just be blotted out.


A lack of knowledge may be due to neglect, or it may be due to mental blindness. Ellen White says Lucifer had an species of insanity.


No, and I don’t believe Lucifer’s was a willful sin.

The "lying representations" could not be such if they weren't lies. There has to be intent involved.

Here's another example of EGW using the phrase in regards to Lucifer's actions:



Here's another quote describing the same event, using different words:



In order to win converts to his side, Lucifer lied, misrepresenting God's character, by attributing to God his own evil characteristics. We know this took place before his final decision, because at his final decision he had converts at his side. How did he get the converts? He lied in regards to God's character. "Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men."

Just as one would suspect, given the use of the word "lying," deception was involved, since that's what a lie is, an untruth told for the purpose of deception.



My point isn't in reference to that. My point is that if pardon is not necessary for sins of ignorance, then the sins Lucifer committed could not have been sins of ignorance. We haven't discussed this before.

However, I will address the point in regards to Lucifer's being given multiple opportunities to confess his sin, as opposed to just one. The condition for pardon was repentance. You cannot have repentance without a recognition that what you have done is wrong, which is to say, confession. Therefore the fact that Lucifer was offered pardon again and again means Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess his sin again and again. Really, what else could it mean?

It doesn't make any sense to say that he many chances to repent of his sin but only one chance to confess his sin.



Where there is no light, there is no sin, and no frown of God. I'm not understanding why there would be a need for pardon if there was no light, or sin, or frown of God.



He would already have had to know he was wrong in order to be offered pardon. Think about it. One of the conditions of the pardon was to repent. He could not repent without knowing he was wrong.

What you believe is that Lucifer didn't know what he was doing was wrong, correct? For example:



Lucifer was obviously acting willfully here, and obviously sinning. To mention just one thing, he was trying to gain converts, and in order to do so, he hid his true purpose. This is clearly willful.

But he thought, at this point in time, that he wasn't doing anything wrong. That's the reason it wasn't a willful sin.

I'm not wishing to rehash old ground here, just verifying that I understand your point of view correctly.

You can lie without an intent to deceive, if you believe that that which you are speaking is true. This is what Eve, for instance, did:

“The temptation to transgress was presented by Eve, who, having herself eaten of the forbidden fruit and realized no immediate harm, offered some of it to Adam, telling him of the great advantages of which they were deprived by not being allowed to eat of it.” {ST, October 10, 1900 par. 2} (See also TA 56.4.)

As to Lucifer, this is what GC says:

“All the powers of his master-mind were now [after his fall] bent to the work of deception, to secure the sympathy of the angels that had been under his command. ... To those whose loving trust bound them most closely to him, Satan had represented that he was wrongly judged, that his position was not respected, and that his liberty was to be abridged. From misrepresentation of the words of Christ, he passed to prevarication and direct falsehood, accusing the Son of God of a design to humiliate him before the inhabitants of Heaven. ... And to sustain his charge of God's injustice toward him, he resorted to misrepresentation of the words and acts of the Creator. {GC 495-496}

Please notice that all this happened after Satan’s fall.


No. Notice what GC says above: “All the powers of his master-mind were now bent to the work of deception, to secure the sympathy of the angels that had been under his command.”


I think that in this last time he was given a public chance to confess his sin.


You are considering two completely different cases. Lucifer had cherished wrong feelings and done wrong things.


That he was wrong was a growing realization. “Perhaps I’m wrong... I think I’m wrong... I’m wrong!” At this last time “his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong” (citing from memory).


He thought God had really treated him unjustly. He thought the law really imposed an unnecessary restraint.

No, you can't. You can tell a falsehood without intent, but not lie. However, you can say something that's true and be lying, if your intent was to deceive.



The intent to deceive is key. It's what distinguishes a lie from a simple falsehood.

I quoted this source previously. Here a couple more I did not quote before:





That Lucifer lied (that is, told untruths with the intent to deceive) before his final decision is easy to establish. There are many ways to see this, but I'll just mention two.

First of all, consider the following:



Notice that Lucifer "deceived" angels. He did so my misrepresenting God. He lied.

How do we know he did so before his final decision? Simple. This is how he got converts to his side. When he made his final decision to rebel, he had angels already there ready to join him. Why were they there? Because of the lies he told about God's character.

Here's a second way we know he lied:



Concealing one's real purpose is a form of lying.

Regarding your quote, it looks to me like you have the page numbers wrong. There's nothing on page 495 which is talking about things before Satan's final decision. It's not until 496 that it says, "Long was he retained in heaven. Again and again he was offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission."



This is from 4SP 319:



Notice it says Satan *had* excited sympathy in his favor. Notice that this is *before* he was sentenced to banishment from heaven. Notice he was given a chance to confess his sin *after* this happened.



Regardless, it's easy to see that if Lucifer was offered pardon again and again he was given the opportunity to confess his sin again and again. To assert otherwise is nonsensical. It would mean that he could repent and submit, but not confess his sin.

Notice the wording:





It's clear that "confess his sin" stands in the same place as "repentance" in the two quotes (3SP, GC)



If nothing wrong was done, the statement that where there is no light, there is no sin, and no frown of God would be out of place, wouldn't it? Why wouldn't the angel just say, "where there is no wrong doing, there is no sin?"



OK, let's say there was a sliding scale from 0 to 100 in terms of Lucifer's thinking he was wrong, with 100 being absolutely convinced. Let's say the "I think I'm wrong" statement was at 80. (or choose some other number if you don't like this one) Then we can say the following:

a)Lucifer was doing things that were wrong, things that were sin, things that required pardon.
b)Lucifer was 80% sure he was wrong.

Would you agree to this?



This is from 4SP 317.



You would agree that this is speaking of before Satan's fall, wouldn't you?

This is from PP 39:



Notice that Lucifer was made to see what would be the result of "persisting in revolt." This means he had already been in revolt, or rebellion, before his fall.

I'm not going to reply point by point, but just analyze a paragraph from GC, which to me is a key statement for the understanding of this subject. Everything else must be harmonized with this paragraph.

"But pride forbade him to submit. He persistently defended his own course, maintained that he had no need of repentance, and fully committed himself, in the great controversy, against his Maker. {GC 495.3}

"All the powers of his master mind were now bent to the work of deception, to secure the sympathy of the angels that had been under his command. Even the fact that Christ had warned and counseled him was perverted to serve his traitorous designs. To those whose loving trust bound them most closely to him, Satan had represented that he was wrongly judged, that his position was not respected, and that his liberty was to be abridged. From misrepresentation of the words of Christ he passed to prevarication and direct falsehood, accusing the Son of God of a design to humiliate him before the inhabitants of heaven. He sought also to make a false issue between himself and the loyal angels. All whom he could not subvert and bring fully to his side he accused of indifference to the interests of heavenly beings. The very work which he himself was doing he charged upon those
497
who remained true to God. And to sustain his charge of God's injustice toward him, he resorted to misrepresentation of the words and acts of the Creator. It was his policy to perplex the angels with subtle arguments concerning the purposes of God. Everything that was simple he shrouded in mystery, and by artful perversion cast doubt upon the plainest statements of Jehovah. His high position, in such close connection with the divine administration, gave greater force to his representations, and many were induced to unite with him in rebellion against Heaven's authority." {GC 496.1}

First, the sentence "fully committed himself, in the great controversy, against his Maker" ensures that this happened after Satan's fall, after Satan's final decision. The page is correct, and Ellen White goes back and forth in her description of his fall. Please notice that the fact that the exciting sympathy in his favor of 4 SP 319 is different from the securing the sympathy of the angels of GC 496, because in the first case it refers to sympathy for the fact that he had been treated unjustly (which he thought was true), and in the second case it refers to his "traitorous designs" (of assuming the command of heaven).

Second, it's clear that his misrepresentations before his fall were different from what he did after his fall: "from misrepresentation of the words of Christ he passed to prevarication and direct falsehood". To prevaricate means "to tell an untruth; lie." So here she is referring to a direct intent to deceive. The same is true of the expression "direct falsehood." Besides, she makes very clear that there was a progression in the gravity of Lucifer's behavior from the period before his fall to the period after his fall (indicated by the expression "he passed to").


What is your basis for saying that? The only persons who knew that he had rebelled were God and he himself.

This post just treats the page number question.

Here's what you cited:



I pointed out



To which you responded:



The page is not correct. This is page 496, not page 495, unless the EGW estate online is wrong.

Here is page 495:



This is all before Lucifer's fall.

What you cited was from pp. 496-497, unless there's some difference between your source and what's on line.

Regarding the page actually being incorrect, the previous post covers that.

Please consider the following paragraph:



What Lucifer did, he did "little by little". Note that he *gradually* led the angels that he had rule over to do him service. How did he do this? By his lying representations.



This is a lying representation, spoken of here:



Here is another spot where Ellen White speaks of his "lying representations"



The lying representations were the way that Lucifer got his converts, which is made clear here:



That the "misrepresented God" is the same as the "lying representations" from (ST 6/13/95) is clear if you compare the ST quote with the DA quote (the rest of the paragraph quoted, and the next one in DA 22).

What happened is very clear. Lucifer sought to obtain service for himself, rather than to God. This is before his fall. At the same time he was "little by little" employing his powers to attract attention and praise to himself, he "gradually" led the angels to serve him instead of God.

How did he do this? By "lying representations."

The SP 317 quotation makes it clear that Lucifer was working to secure the angels to his side *before* his fall, and every account of his fall makes it clear that the way he got converts to his side was by deception.

I am aware of absolutely nothing which suggests that Lucifer acted innocently or with sincerity, or that what he did was excusable on the basis of ignorance. (If you can produce anything which suggests this, I would like to see it). Instead what I see is that from the very beginning, both heavenly angels and Christ met with him, explaining to him why his dissatisfaction was without cause. This is well before his fall.

But instead of taking heed to this counsel, he resisted it, and maintained he had no need for repentance. We see that Lucifer was offered pardon "again and again," long retained in heaven, even after his "lying representations". It should be recognized that "lying representations" included the intent to deceive. The ST passage cited above shows that EGW used the phrase in accordance with standard and correct English practice.



The chief thing that changed here was that Lucifer was out in the open. Before she wrote:



Before he rebelled openly, which he was forced to do because Lucifer's actions made it imperative that God take action to expose what he was doing secretly, Lucifer sought to hide what he was doing under a guise. God exposed him, so he could no longer operate under this guise.



EGW writes:



Also the quote from before says he was gradually bringing angels to do him service instead of God. So the process was well underway by the time Lucifer made his final decision.

Here's what happened:

a)Lucifer was filled with envy and hatred against Christ.
b)Lucifer sought to exalt himself.
c)Lucifer gradually worked to get angels to serve him instead of God (at the same time as b).
d)Christ and heavenly beings sought to show Lucifer his dissatisfaction was without cause, and warned him of what would happen if he persisted in his course.
e)Lucifer continued his work in secrecy, under a guise of reverence.
f)God had to take action to expose Lucifer's actions. God refrained from doing this as long as possible, for Lucifer's benefit, in an attempt to win him back.
g)Lucifer, being exposed, openly rebelled against God, and secured, by deception, those whom he had already excited sympathy with (also by deception, of course; how else could it have been?)
h)Other angels chose to join Lucifer in rebellion.

The most salient point in all of this is that Lucifer was offered pardon "again and again" on the condition of repentance and submission. He was also given the opportunity to confess his sin. Even if, as you suggest, this opportunity to confess his sin is referring specifically to the time of his final decision, it is ludicrous to suppose that Lucifer was not given the opportunity to confess his sin before this. He was offered pardon "again and again" on condition of what? Repentance. What does repentance entail, if not a confession of sin? That Lucifer would be offered pardon, on the condition of repentance, but not the opportunity to confess that for which he was being offered pardon simply doesn't make any sense.

The confusion arose because the reference is given having in view where the paragraph begins, not where it ends. So if you look at the quote in my last post, you will see that the reference is given as GC 495.3. Since I didn't know which part of the paragraph was located in page 495 and which was in page 496, I put the reference as 495-496.

Ellen White uses “representation(s)” and “misrepresentation(s)” to what Lucifer does both before and after his fall, which can be seen by the phrases “from misrepresentation of the words of Christ,” “misrepresentation of the words and acts of the Creator,” and “gave greater force to his representations,” from the quote of GC which I posted. So yes, he began it before his fall, but it’s clear that after his fall he began to lie deliberately.

Why do I classify his behavior before his fall as a sin of ignorance? Because of what is said in the following quote:

“Lucifer himself had not at first been acquainted with the real nature of his feelings; for a time he had feared to express the workings and imaginings of his mind; yet he did not dismiss them. He did not see whither he was drifting. But such efforts as infinite love and wisdom only could devise, were made to convince him of his error. His disaffection was proved to be without cause, and he was made to see what would be the result of persisting in revolt. Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong. He saw that "the Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works" (Psalm 145:17); that the divine statutes are just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels. He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had left his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office. The time had come for a final decision; he must fully yield to the divine sovereignty or place himself in open rebellion. He nearly reached the decision to return, but pride forbade him. It was too great a sacrifice for one who had been so highly honored to confess that he had been in error, that his imaginings were false, and to yield to the authority which he had been working to prove unjust.” {PP 39.1}


But who said he hadn’t been given the opportunity to confess his sin before his final decision? Certainly not me. What I said is that if he wasn’t convinced he was wrong, how could he have confessed it? What I also said is that, if this was referring to his first opportunity instead of the last one, EGW would have expressed things differently. The difference in the last opportunity is that he was convinced that he was in the wrong, but chose not to admit it and not to confess it.

There's no doubt that Lucifer was deliberately lying after his fall. However, he also deliberately lied before his fall. He wasn't accidentally lying. In order to make "lying representations" he had to be lying, which is telling untruths for the purpose of deceiving. Otherwise Lucifer would have just been saying things that he thought were true, but weren't. If this is all he were doing, there would be no need for pardon.

Regarding the PP quote, isn't it clear that Lucifer became convinced little by little that he was wrong? He went from whatever doubt he originally had that he was wrong to being absolutely convinced that he was wrong. However, he had enough light to be held culpable. For one thing, God Himself, in the person of His Son, told Him He was wrong, directly, face to face.

God gives us hooks to hang our doubt on. It is not God's way to beat us into submission. He gives enough evidence for a person to make a decision. That Lucifer had this evidence is evident by the fact that God began to offer him pardon.

The fact that God offered Lucifer pardon is very significant. It means that Lucifer had enough understanding of what he was doing that:

a)He needed pardon.
b)He could accept that pardon.



If he wasn't convinced he was wrong, God wouldn't have been offered him pardon, right? The exact same argument you are making regarding his confessing his sin can be made in regard to his complying for the conditions of pardon, which were repentance and submission. How could he have repented of his sin and submitted, the conditions for pardon, if he weren't convinced he was wrong?

And yet we know that he was offered pardon "again and again." Therefore it's clear that he had enough light to be knowingly sinning, to repent, and to be pardoned.

The fact that he was acting in secret, under a guise of reverence, additionally demonstrates conclusively that Lucifer had an understanding that what he was doing was wrong. Whom was he intending to fool by his guise, by his secrecy? Certainly not God.

I'd like to get something clear in my mind. Is it your position that at no point did Lucifer deliberately sin until after he made his decision to cast off all allegiance to God?

When we meet people and they immediately tell us a lie to cover up things from the past, just like Satan does, how are we to react? To what degree is sin and lies connected?

No. God spoke to him several times, and of course since the first time, when he didn’t yet have any notion that he was wrong, God started to offer him pardon. I understand he was vacillating. At times he thought: “Maybe God is right and I’m wrong, after all,” while at other times he thought: “I can’t be wrong. My reasoning seems so logical.” By the time of his final decision, however, he was fully convinced he was wrong.


If we consider that deliberately means willfully, no, I don’t think Lucifer sinned willfully before his fall. Before his fall, he was just disputing the justice of the law. By the time of his final decision, however, he fully understood the justice of the law and refused allegiance to it. This is willful transgression.

Isn't willful transgression what we need pardon for? If Lucifer wasn't doing anything He thought was wrong, why would he need pardon?



Also I read things like this:



I'm pretty sure you'll agree that this is dealing exclusively with the time before Lucifer's fall. I note such things as:

a)His desire for supremacy returned, and envy of Christ was once more indulged.
b)He glorified in his brightness and exaltation and aspired to be equal with God.
c)Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels.

I wonder how these things could be seen be anyone as not willful or deliberate. Just how does one go forth to diffuse a spirit of discontent, working in secrecy to disguise one's purpose, in a manner that is not deliberate or willful? I wonder how she could have portrayed his actions any more clearly as being deliberate.

Isn't it sin to aspire to be equal with God, and to lead others to serve yourself instead of Him? Isn't it sin to indulge envy and hatred in your heart against Christ? Don't words like "indulge" depict something done deliberately?

I understand your point that Lucifer wasn't fully convinced he was wrong until later one, but not being 100% convinced you are wrong does not change willful, deliberate sin into something that is not sin, or not deliberate. I can understand the argument that Lucifer was not banished from heaven because he wasn't fully convinced he was wrong, but I don't understand why this would mean his actions were not deliberate or transgression.

MM: Tom, there is only one quote which uses the word "sin" in relation to Lucifer's behavior, and it refers to moment he was convinced pursuing his course further would be wrong. The instant he decided to rebel "at all hazards" is the instant he committed the unpardonable sin. All those times he was offered pardon, before becoming guilty of sin, he was not guilty of sinning.

MM: Tom, again, the "sin" quote refers specifically to the moment he was convinced pursuing his course further would be sinning. She never once used the word "sin" to describe his course before he was convinced it would be wrong to continue pursuing it.

MM: But all sins of ignorance required blood atonement after the fact, not just some of them. Why?


MM: If God can just blot out sins of ignorance, why doesn't He do it now? Why does He require blood atonement?


MM: If he was insane, what good would if have done to just blot out his sin? How could God offer to pardon and reinstate an insane person?


MM: Okay. But do you believe God can pardon willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus?

MM: So, are you saying Lucifer was 1) guilty of rebelling before he was convinced pursuing his course further would be sinning, and 2) God was willing to pardon and reinstate him without shedding the blood of Jesus?

Rosangela, was Lucifer's course wrong before he was convinced pursuing it further would be sinning? In other words, at what point was his course, from God's perspective, considered sinning? Was he guilty of sinning before he was convinced his course had come to a point pursuing it further would be sinning?

"Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, his course was with convincing clearness shown to be wrong, and he was granted an opportunity to confess his sin, and submit to God's authority as just and righteous. But he chose to carry his points at all hazards."

MM, if Lucifer had not sinned, he wouldn't need pardon. If you are correct that once Lucifer sinned, God would not pardon him, then we have a scenario wherein God offered Lucifer pardon, as long as he didn't need it, but as soon as he did need it, God discontinued the offer. That would be pretty odd, don't you think?

Regarding where it says that Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess his sin before being banished from heaven, you understand this to mean that he could have been pardoned had he chosen to do so, don't you?

Here's what she wrote:



The sin that EGW is referring to in this particular quote is clear: "Satan had excited sympathy in his favor by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ." This sin Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess.

I'm not sure your assertion that this is the only place EGW uses the word "sin" in relation to Lucifer's activities is correct, but despite whether or not she did use this word elsewhere, I know she uses the word "iniquity" to describe Lucifer's behavior, as well as the word "transgression." She also uses the word "rebellion" referring to his activity at this time, *before* Lucifer's final decision (RH Jan. 28, 1909). She also uses the words "pardon," and "repentance" and "over and over again" in relation to Lucifer's activity.

In spite of the words she uses to describe what Lucifer did, whether "sin" or "iniquity" or "rebellion" or "transgression," there is is the description of the activity itself, which includes things like harboring envy and hatred, lying, aspiring to be equal with God, getting beings to serve him instead of God, and such like, which are obviously sin.

Notice that Lucifer was made to see what would be the result of "persisting in revolt." This means he had already been in revolt, or rebellion, before his fall.

MM: So, are you saying Lucifer was 1) guilty of rebelling before he was convinced pursuing his course further would be sinning,

Actually, I quoted Ellen White. Here's another quote where she describes Lucifer's activity as "rebellion".



Note this corresponds to the following:



This is before Lucifer's final decision, which can be seen by looking at GC 495, 496.

So we see from these quotes that Lucifer was in rebellion, or revolt, before he made his final decision to cast off all allegiance to God.

and 2) God was willing to pardon and reinstate him without shedding the blood of Jesus?

From GC we read that God offered Lucifer pardon again and again under the condition of repentance and submission. Lucifer would have been forgiven and reinstated to his post had he done so.

We also read in 4SP that Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess his sin.

Jesus Christ had not died.

MM: God offered to pardon and reinstate Lucifer before he was guilty of sinning. This pardon was conditional upon Lucifer agreeing to dismiss his doubts and to cease pursuing his course any further. It did not involve pardoning sin. Had he chosen to comply with the conditions, including the final offer, he would have been pardoned and reinstated.

But the moment Lucifer chose to pursue his course "at all hazards" he was guilty of sinning. In that exact same moment he was guilty of committing the unpardonable sin. At that point, pardon was, of course, no longer offered. It was impossible. He did not, by the way, gradually sin more and more until pardon was no longer available. "But no provision had been made to save those [angels] who should venture to transgress His law." (SR 18)

Because what he did was wrong.


Of course he did what he did because he wished to do it, so in this sense it was done deliberately. But it wasn’t deliberately wrong – that is, when you are sure that something is wrong and you do that in spite of knowing it is wrong. He thought God was being really unjust, that His law was unjust, and that he himself was right. When he saw that he was wrong and then decided to continue in that course, this was a deliberate sin.

Tom, from your other posts above I understand you believe Lucifer was guilty of revolting, rebelling and that God was willing to pardon and reinstate him without shedding the blood of Jesus.

One possible explanation could be the following:

We can observe that some sins of ignorance can bar the entrance into God’s kingdom but won’t be visited by God’s wrath – won’t be punished. (See for instance the case of the slaves who will not be resurrected to die the second death.) Thus, a native in Africa may be condemned by the wrong things he did despite the warnings of his conscience (Rom. 2:12-16), but he will not be condemned for the sin, for instance, of not having observed the Sabbath. Nobody will be condemned and punished by the light which has not reached their understanding.
Why will these sins then bar the unsaved’s entrance into God’s kingdom? Perhaps because those who committed them are incapable of seeing their gravity and of experiencing genuine repentance for them.
One of the main objectives of Christ’s death was to teach man the gravity of sin. Adam and Eve didn’t feel the gravity of their sin until the death of the first lamb – until they understood that they had killed God Himself because of their sin. Without this sacrifice, they wouldn’t have understood it.

“Man had separated himself at such distance from God by transgression of His law that he could not humiliate himself before God in any degree proportionate to the magnitude of his sin. The Son of God could fully understand the aggravating sins of the transgressor, and in His sinless character He alone could make an acceptable atonement for man in suffering the agonizing sense of His Father's displeasure. The sorrow and anguish of the Son of God for the sins of the world were proportionate to His divine excellence and purity, as well as to the magnitude of the offense.” {Con 50.1}

However, we could suppose that if Lucifer had repented, perhaps he could have humiliated himself enough – that is, he could have fully understood the gravity of his sin.

But notice I’m not affirming this, I’m just exploring possibilities.



Same reason as above.


Obviously if he confessed his sin this meant he had returned to his sanity.


Willful sin? No, of course not.


Yes.


Well, it seems he was not guilty of sinning before he was convinced his course was wrong.

Not just of revolting, or rebelling. Lucifer had done a great many things requiring pardon, including rebellion.

Regarding the second part, yes, I see Ellen White saying that God was willing to pardon and reinstate Lucifer, on the conditions of repentance and submission.

What does the phrase "not guilty of sinning" mean? In ordinary language, this means the same thing as "not sinning," so to say that Lucifer was not guilty of sinning simply means he was not sinning. I have a feeling you have something else in mind, like perhaps not guilty of willfully sinning.

R: However, we could suppose that if Lucifer had repented, perhaps he could have humiliated himself enough – that is, he could have fully understood the gravity of his sin. But notice I’m not affirming this, I’m just exploring possibilities.

MM: Yes, it is important to keep in mind Lucifer's decision to rebel is mysterious and unexplainable. But the idea that Lucifer was guilty of sinning and that God would have pardoned and reinstated him without shedding the blood of Jesus is unbiblical. Everything we know about sinning points to blood atonement. I believe the same thing applies to sins of ignorance, that is, if Lucifer was guilty of sinning ignorantly the testimonies make it clear the shed blood of Jesus is required to make atonement.

R: Well, it seems [Lucifer] was not guilty of sinning before he was convinced his course was wrong.

MM: Are you referring to intentional or unintentional sinning? In other words, was he guilty of sinning ignorantly before he was convinced pursuing his course further would be sinning?

MM: God offered to pardon and reinstate Lucifer before he was guilty of sinning. This pardon was conditional upon Lucifer agreeing to dismiss his doubts and to cease pursuing his course any further. It did not involve pardoning sin. Had he chosen to comply with the conditions, including the final offer, he would have been pardoned and reinstated.

But the moment Lucifer chose to pursue his course "at all hazards" he was guilty of sinning. In that exact same moment he was guilty of committing the unpardonable sin. At that point, pardon was, of course, no longer offered. It was impossible. He did not, by the way, gradually sin more and more until pardon was no longer available. "But no provision had been made to save those [angels] who should venture to transgress His law." (SR 18)

MM: What was the difference between Lucifer rebelling 1) before and 2) after he was convinced pursuing his course further would be sinning?

Regarding the second part, I'm still not clear - Are you saying you believe God was willing to pardon and reinstate Lucifer, even though he was guilty of rebelling and willfully sinning, without shedding the blood of Jesus, that the only thing God required of Lucifer was confession, repentance, and submission?

If this is what you believe, and this is what you believe Sister White taught, why, then, do we read in so many places inspired authors writing against the idea that sinners can do something to redeem themselves, to satisfy the just and loving demands of the law, to make propitiation for themselves?

He knew he was sinning before his final decision. This is obvious by his actions. For example:



If he had no conviction what he was doing was wrong, he wouldn't have hidden his real purpose.



I think the easiest way to answer this is to understand what the problem was. If the problem were a legal problem, which required Christ's blood, then God could not have offered Lucifer pardon on condition of repentance and submission. So the blood is not necessary to solve a legal problem. But clearly, for man, blood was necessary, for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. So why was it necessary?

Man's fundamental problem was believing the lies Satan told about God.



How Satan got man to rebel was through deception, by misrepresenting God's character. In order to bring man back to God, it was necessary for man to see the truth about God.



The purpose of Christ's ministry was to bring man to God by revealing His character.



In particular, His death on the cross reveal God's love and character:



I'm not understanding where you get the idea that there is any redemption of oneself involved. Speaking of Lucifer, his pardon was on the condition of repentance and submission, something which was within his power to do. Had he done so, he would not have been redeeming himself nor making a propitiation. He would simply have been acknowledging that he had done wrong and accept the forgiveness God was offering him.

In the case of man, repentance and submission was not something within his power to do, and so the Plan of Salvation was implemented. God so loved the world that He gave His Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Through Christ, we can be reconciled to God. Christ is the truth which dispels the lies about God.

MM: But what was the difference before and after? Why was his sin pardonable before but not after? See original question above. Realize, of course, that the idea Lucifer was sinning willfully (before he was convinced pursuing his course further involve sinning) is inconclusive. The evidence doesn’t support it.


MM: I appreciate the quotes you posted. But they don’t address my question, nor do they support your assertion that God was willing to pardon Lucifer’s willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus. Nowhere is such an idea advocated, that is, no where is it taught God pardons willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus. And, nowhere does it say repentance and submission are sufficient to atone for willful sin.

Please, Tom, post quotes that deal directly with the question, not quotes that you believe imply it. A supposed implication totally comes short of supporting such an audacious claim, namely, that God is willing to pardon willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus, that repentance and submission are, of themselves, sufficient to atone for willful sinning.

Such a claim goes against everything we know to be right and true. I need more than mere logical deduction supposedly based on unrelated insights to abandoned the truth, to believe such a contradictory claim. I need a plain, Thus saith the Lord. So far you haven’t provided it.

It wasn't that God could not pardon the sin, but Lucifer had made a final decision, and there was nothing more that God could do for him. The difference was in Lucifer.



Regarding Lucifer sinning willfully, the evidence is clear. One can see this by the description of what he did. For example, he lied. A lie is a willful sin. Another example is that he feigned reverence for God and acted with mysterious secrecy.

Also there is the fact that God offered him pardon. Since when does God offer pardon for anything other than willful sin? Has God, in your entire life (I'm referring to the Holy Spirit's work of convicting of sin) ever convicted you of something other than willful sin? Has God ever offered to forgive you of something other than willful sin?



Yes they do, MM. The quotes explain why the death of Christ was necessary, which is the very point we're discussing. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. Why not? That's the key question to understand.

The quotes bring out that man was brought under Satan's rule by means of being deceived by Satan in regards to God's character (DA quote). It also brings out that the *whole* purpose of Christ's ministry was to reveal God's character, in order to make man right with God (ST quote). Which explains why the cross revealing the love and character of God (DA quote) was so important. It all fits together.

As to the blood of Jesus not being necessary in order for God to offer Lucifer pardon, we have the record that God did indeed offer Lucifer pardon many times, and we have the record that Jesus did not die, making it clear that His death was not necessary in order for God to offer Lucifer pardon, since He did that very thing.

You have decided to look at things from the perspective that Anselm brought to light in the 11th century, a time when the honor of Lords was important, as well as maintaining order and control. But Anselm's understanding does not agree with the background of Scripture. In Paul's time, the idea of a sacrifice being needed in order for God to pardon simply didn't exist. Unfortunately, having moved recently, my books are still in a state of array, so I can't post what I was thinking of. I couldn't find anything on line regarding what I was looking for either. I thought I had posted something on this, but couldn't find that either.

At any rate, Anselm's idea simply didn't exist at the time of Paul.



Nowhere is it taught that God will only pardon sin if shedding of blood is involved. There is no need to teach something which is false.

Cite one thing from Jesus Christ where He says the purpose of His death was to allow God to pardon us. Just one thing. A statement of His, or a parable or anything. You can't. Such a statement or teaching does not exist.

If the purpose of His death were to allow God to pardon us, don't you think He would have at least mentioned that somewhere?



The facts are there, MM. We can see what he did. He "indulged" hatred and envy. He lied. He aspired to be equal with God. He schemed to get other angels to serve him instead of God. He feigned reverence for God and secretly hid the true purpose of his actions, which was to exalt himself. Any one of these things would be enough to show willful sin.

Plus there is the fact that Lucifer was offered pardon "again and again" as well as being the opportunity to confess his sin.



Please pay attention to the quotes and what I said! Every quote says exactly what I said it did. There's nothing implied. I'll go through just a little bit of this so you can see this.

Here's a quote.



Here's my comment:



Do you see how my comment is not something implied by what I quoted, not something I "believe was implied" but something which was actually stated?

Each comment I made is along the same lines. Each comment I made is sustained by the quote I'm commenting one.



Surely if what you say is true, that God is unwilling to forgive unless the shedding of blood is involved were true, Jesus would have taught it somewhere. Where is such a teaching to be found?

The account of Lucifer is a "thus saith the Lord" if you believe Ellen White to be inspired. We see in the account the sin, we see the repeated offer for pardon, but we see no mention of the need for blood. Why don't you need a "thus saith the Lord" for what you believe? And why should I need a thus saith the Lord to negate a position which is false?

Tom, I thought we agreed to include the ongoing dialog each time we post a reply. I've been trying to do it as it makes things go faster, that is, we don't have to scroll back and forth to remember the context of the conversation. Lately you have been leaving out the ongoing dialog.

I've been including what I posted, and your most recent comment. If I include everything, the dialog will quickly become very large. I try to respond to everything you say, which sort of precludes my including all the comments leading up to that point, for reasons of space. Obviously, we can't keep including everything, as the posting will double with each additional post.

What's your suggestion on how to handle this?

MM: Are you saying God can and will pardon willful sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus so long as the sinner is capable of experiencing genuine repentance and submission? Where is the evidence to support it?

And, please, do not cite the SOP quotes you always post. They simply do not say what you say they say. Nowhere does she say God can or will pardon willful sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus. Your saying she does does not make it so. I'll believe it if inspiration plainly states it.

Also, Sister White's description of Lucifer's behavior, before he was guilty of willfully sinning, does not include the conclusion that he was guilty of willfully of sinning. You are taking unlicensed liberty in making a private interpretation, you are adding your own conclusion to the inspired account.

And, yes, God requires blood atonement for sins of ignorance, both before and after the sinner becomes aware of wrongdoing. Inspiration is crystal clear on this point. Which is why we can conclude that the pardon God offered Lucifer had nothing to do with sinning - either intentionally or unintentionally.


MM: Tom, not once do the quotes you posted say God was willing to pardon willful sinning. Not once. If they did, then rest assured I would agree with you. But they don't. Also, the quote about Jesus' "whole" ministry does not contradict what she wrote in the following passages:

AG 139
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7}


MM: Tom, do you believe Jesus speaks to us through the OT? Or, are you assuming He only speaks to us through the NT? Either way, where in the NT does Jesus say God can and will pardon sinning without applying the shed the blood of Jesus?

"In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin." If I remember right, and please correct me if I've gotten it wrong, you interpret this insight (and the other one quoted above) in light of the moral influence theory. That is, I hear you saying the death of Jesus served only to create an environment whereby sinners could repent, could hate sin and love God. But you totally reject the idea His death was required to give God the legal right to pardon sinning.


MM: Again, you are assuming her description of Lucifer's tactics and strategy implies he was guilty of willfully sinning. But that is your conclusion, not hers. Please keep in mind she is describing the behavior of a perfect and sinless angel, at a time in history when sinning was unheard of.


MM: In DA 21, 22 (quoted above) she is describing Satan's behavior after he was convinced his course was wrong.


MM: Tom, inspiration is clear - God cannot pardon sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus.

MM: Let's include enough of the ongoing dialog that we do not have to go back and forth to make sense of it.

OK. Actually the way things scroll, I guess the length is not a problem. It is easier to read your posts the way you are doing things. I have had the same problem you are speaking of in some conversations with others where someone makes some comment of which I don't know the context so I have to go looking for it, so I think yours is a good idea.

Sounds good to me. I posted a response above my last one for you look at.

What I said was that the problem of man and angels was being deceived in regards to the love and character of God. Apart from Christ, man would never have seen the truth, and would have been lost. The quotes I have provided make the following points clear:

a)The whole purpose of Christ's ministry was the revelation of God, in order to set men right with Him.
b)The cross revealed the love and character of God, which made it possible for man to be brought back to God.
c)Lucifer knew God's character, and was offered pardon on the condition of repentance and submission.



Please take a look at a), b) and c). Which quote that I have been citing does not say what I have summarized in a), b) and c)?



I'm not so sure I would be so confident in my ability to believe something different than what I believe just because inspiration states it. This requires a certain amount of flexibility. I recall a number of occasions where you have claimed that words do not mean what they ordinarily mean, which does not seem to be demonstrating the willingness to believe something just because inspiration says it. It's not such an easy thing to change one's mind about something one believes. (Please note I'm including myself in saying this; i.e. my remarks here are not only directed towards you.)



I'm just asking that one looks at the record of what Lucifer did. It's pretty obvious that these were willful sins.

Try the following experiment. If you have friends that are not SDAs, simply give them the passage, have them read it, and ask them the question if Lucifer was willfully sinning.

The only way it seems to me that one could read of the lying, the scheming, the induldging of hatred and envy, aspiring to be equal to God, and so forth, and not think this is willful sin is to have some presuppositions already in place that would inhibit one from such a conclusion.

As I pointed out, in addition to the accounts she gives, she speaks of Lucifer's being in revolt, in rebellion, commiting iniquity, as well as transgression.



Where is inspiration clear on this? In Scripture we read that God winked in times of ignorance. In the Spirit of Prophecy we read that where there is no light, there is no sin, and no frown of God. It seems that inspiration is clear this is NOT the case. Plus, what sense would it make? Atonement is "at-one-ment," as Sister White puts it, which is reconciliation. How can one be reconciled if one has no idea one is doing wrong?



This just looks like circular reasoning. You believe a certain thing, and so "conclude" that what you believe is true. Look at what you just wrote! "Which is why we can conclude that the pardong God offered Lucifer had nothing to do with sinning." Why can we conclude this? Because it is your opinion. But where is the evidence for this opinion? You haven't cited a single thing.

On the other hand, we know that God offered pardon to Lucifer "again and again." I'm sure you agree with this. We also know that pardon is for sin. Or I suppose I could ask you to provide what you ask me to, and ask you to show me a "thus saith the Lord" that the pardon that Lucifer was offered had nothing to do with sin. Or, to make it easier, a "Thus saith the Lord" where *any* pardon at any time in any circumstance offered by God to anybody is stated to not have anything to do with sin.

In addition to being offered pardon "again and again," Lucifer was given the opportunity to "confess his sin." Most people would conclude that if Lucifer was given an opportunity to confess his sin, that he had sinned.



Is there some place where I claimed the quotes I posted say God was willing to pardon willful sinning? Why not consider whether or not the quotes say the things I actually said they say?

Please take a look at what I actually wrote, at what I said the quotes actually said, and what the quotes actually say, and see if you agree with that.



Certainly not. The passages you cite should be interpreted in the light of what she wrote about the whole ministry of Jesus being to reveal God to us so that we could be set right with Him.



I would call what I believe to be the "Great Controversy" theme as opposed to the Moral Influence Theory, which both misses essential points to the GC theory, as well as including some points I don't agree with (e.g., the formulation of righteousness by faith under MIT). I agree with Fifield's explanations, who was a contemporary of Ellen White. Here are a couple of quotes:





I see his writing to be in harmony with hers. For example, not his explanation of "atonement" as "at-one-ment" (the same as hers). Also his remarks brings to mind the following quote of EGW:





That sinning was unheard of, does not make sin not to be sin. The first commandment says not to have any other Gods before you. Lucifer aspired to be equal with God, and drew homage that should have been given to God to himself. This is clearly a violation of the first commandment. She spoke of Lucifer's "lying representations," which is a violation of the commandment not to bear false witness. She also described what Lucifer did as "iniquity," "transgression," "revolt," and "rebellion."

Regarding whether the conclusion that Lucifer was willfully sinning is a reasonable one, I would again simply invite you to give the passage in question to any non-SDA friend you have, and ask them if the being in the passage is willfully sinning.



Not in the case of angels. She spoke of Lucifer's already having "excited the sympathy of heavenly beings" through his "lying representations" before being convinced he was wrong.



The question is why not? What is the meaning of the text? Is the meaning that the shedding of the blood of Jesus is necessary on God's side, or on ours? My arguments have been to demonstrate that your ideas cannot be correct, because they fail in the case of Lucifer. Your counter to this seems very weak. For example, it depends upon the idea that God's offering Lucifer pardon was not pardon for sin (this is probably the weakest point in your argument).

It also depends upon things Lucifer did, described as "lying representations," "rebellion," "aspiring to be equal with God" and so forth as not being sin.

Another major flaw in your idea is that not even so much as one time during the entirety of Jesus' ministry did He ever give voice to your idea. However, everything he did and said concides with my view, which is that the whole purpose of His minstry was to set us right with God through a revelation of His character.

TE: Regarding whether the conclusion that Lucifer was willfully sinning is a reasonable one, I would again simply invite you to give the passage in question to any non-SDA friend you have, and ask them if the being in the passage is willfully sinning.

MM: I'm not sure I'm comfortable with letting a non-SDA friend settle the issue for us. Neither would I be comfortable admitting that a SDA friend of mine believes God was willing to pardon Lucifer's willful sinning without requiring the death of Jesus. I don't know of anyone, besides you, who believes God can pardon willful sinning without the substitutionary death of Jesus.

TE: Regarding whether the conclusion that Lucifer was willfully sinning is a reasonable one, I would again simply invite you to give the passage in question to any non-SDA friend you have, and ask them if the being in the passage is willfully sinning.

MM: I'm not sure I'm comfortable with letting a non-SDA friend settle the issue for us. Neither would I be comfortable admitting that a SDA friend of mine believes God was willing to pardon Lucifer's willful sinning without requiring the death of Jesus. I don't know of anyone, besides you, who believes God can pardon willful sinning without the substitutionary death of Jesus.

You mean in the case of Lucifer? I can think of quite a few people who believe this. Maybe you need to run around in different circles :).

The point about letting an non-SDA read it is not to settle the issue, but to demonstrate that Ellen White is not being in any way unclear that Lucifer was sinning. I'm just pointing out that any person with no ax to grind would naturally see this, which is why I suggested the experiment.

Back to the pardon issue. The question of why the blood was needed is the main issue. No one is debating *that* blood was needed (for man), but why. Given that the blood was needed for man, but not for Lucifer, the reason must be something which applies to man, but not to Lucifer. This is why the idea that *God* needed the blood must be ruled out.

As to why I think it is necessary, the quotes by Fifield I think bring out the issues wonderfully. I'll repost the quotes, and add one.








I think these quotes are right on target. They match perfectly the teachings of Jesus Christ, which is an important point.

I think when I ask you where in Jesus' teachings does He present the idea you are suggesting, and you can't come up with any place, that's a telling point that perhaps the idea you are suggesting isn't getting at the real reason that Christ died. On the other hand, there are teachings of His which are directly contrary to the idea you are suggesting, such as the parable of the prodigal son, and the parable of the man pardoned by the king, to just name two.

There are also the teachings of the sermon on the mount.

There is Jesus' example in forgiving the woman caught in adultery and the publican. He demanded no blood, but freely forgave them. He always taught that God freely forgives. There's no hint of any other idea than this.

Finally, and perhaps the greatest expression of this theme, was Jesus' words "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Jesus was here revealing the heart of the Father.

God freely forgives is a pillar of Jesus' teaching. We cannot have the full, rich relationship with God thinking that He will only forgive us if His Son dies to satisfy Him, that we could have if we believe that God freely forgives, and freely loves, and as an expression of that love and forgiveness *gives* us His Son, in order that we can be reconciled to Him.

Please consider carefully the Fifield quotes. They really helped me in better understanding this issue.

TE: God freely forgives is a pillar of Jesus' teaching.

MM: The reason God can rightfully and legally justify forgiving repentant sinners is because 1) Jesus paid their sin debt of death, and 2) they are dead to sin and awake to righteousness, that is, they are abiding in Jesus, partaking of the divine nature, walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man.

TE: We cannot have the full, rich relationship with God thinking that He will only forgive us if His Son dies to satisfy Him ....

MM: God is able and willing to forgive us for the reasons stated above. It has absolutely nothing to do with satisfying a lust for revenge. Justice demands that sin be not MERELY pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. That's the way it is. I cannot explain it, but I accept it. It is the truth. Jesus taught it both by precept and example. Nothing is clearer in Jesus' teachings than the relationship between sin and death and pardon.

AG 139
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7}

Also, God cannot pardon willful sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus. This is a pillar of truth. In fact, there comes a time when willful sinning cannot be pardoned.

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Where did Jesus teach this?



This isn't a good idea, to accept something you don't understand (if you can't explain something, you don't understand it). This is also a huge hint that there is something wrong in your paradigm if it leads you to believe things that don't make sense to you (if it made sense, you could explain it).



I see an assertion here, but no evidence. Where did Jesus teach be example that God did not not freely forgive sin? That He needed a penalty to be paid in order to forgive?

I can think of several times where Jesus forgave sins. He forgave the paralytic. He forgave the woman caught in adultery. Where was the blood? Who or what was killed by Jesus before he forgave them?

What example did you have in mind? It seems to me that Jesus' example was diametrically opposed to what you are suggesting. His example was to freely forgive.



It seems to me that from these verses you should be able to see that a penal view is not being presented here. If sacrifice allows God to forgive, then how would willfully sinning make God unable to forgive? That doesn't make sense, right? That would make us limiting God.

Rather, isn't it clear that Hebrews is speaking here of the sin of hardening our hearts so that *we* lose the capacity to be forgiven?

There's nothing penal here at all.

Did you look at the Fifield quotes? Perhaps there's something in them we could discuss.

Jesus is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." The sacrificial system symbolized His death. Sins required death to make atonement. No death meant no pardon, no forgiveness, no atonement. On the day of atonement, sins were rolled back upon disingenuous sinners who were then excommunicated. Jesus was able to forgive people based on the efficacy of His impending sacrifice.

Jesus never said anywhere any of the things in your post here, MM. You haven't presented a single thing from Jesus' life or teaching to support your position. To support mine I cite:

a)Jesus' treatment of the paralytic.
b)Jesus' treatment of the woman caught in adultery.
c)Jesus' parable of the prodigal son.
d)Jesus' parable of the king who pardoned the servant.
e)Jesus' teachings on the sermon on the mount (turn the other cheek, etc.)
f)Jesus' actions on the cross (e.g. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do).

You didn't address my post, it doesn't look like. Did you read the Fifield quotes? Perhaps there's something in them we could discuss. Do they make sense to you?

Jesus taught the Jews in the OT. No death meant no forgiveness. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. Do you recognize that there was a necessity for Jesus to come in the flesh in order to reveal God to us? From your comments, it appears you think this was unnecessary.

Anyway, back to my question. I'm asking where Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, in either His teachings or actions, ever depicted God as not being able to forgive unless a payment of blood was made.

Changing tacks a bit, but as a response to your questions about the Old Testament, how do you understand this?

Jesus established the sacrificial system of atonement. He gave us the laws of Moses. He supported them while here in the flesh. Not once did He change or contradict what He commanded in the OT. Do you agree?

John
5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Matthew
23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

You didn't answer my questions, MM. There were two.

God in the Old Testament was not understood. He still isn't. To clear away the confusion, God came in the flesh, so that we could understand Him.







If God in the Old Testament had been understood, then Christ would not have had to make Him known. The necessity for the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission, the revelation of God, existed exactly because God had not been misunderstood.

So what is the truth about God? It is precisely that which Christ revealed on earth. His whole purpose was to do just that. It is defeating the very purpose for which Christ came to go away from His life and teachings while here on earth to explain something which you can't explain by His life and teachings.

To say this more simply, anything you have to say about God you should be able to explain by the life and teachings of Christ. All that man can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.

I've substantiated my position with many statements and examples from the life of Christ. But to substantiate your position, you are wanting to go outside of that which, according to Ellen White, reveals all that can be known about God.

It's inconceivable that Christ came here to earth, and never explained the purpose of His death.

To answer directly your question to me, Christ explained what the OT meant.

Tom, I do not believe what Jesus said and did in the OT accounts for why people misunderstood the character of God. Jesus made that clear when He said, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

He is saying, If you want to know what I and my Father are like - READ THE OLD TESTAMENT. The fact people did not know God is the fault of the Pharisees and other leaders. Do not blame the OT. Do not blame what Jesus said and did in the OT.

Again, Jesus made it abundantly clear that there can be no forgiveness without the death of a divine substitute. His name, Lamb of God, testifies to this fact. People who refused to confess their sins upon a sacrificial lamb were unforgiven and eventually excommunicated. No death equals no atonement.

Jesus said, whatever my Father speaks, I speak; whatever I see my Father doing, I do. Where did Jesus hear and see these things? How did Jesus learn about God? By reading the Old Testament.

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," which is Him saying, "If you want to know what my view of the Old Testament God is, Look at Me!"

IMO, You've got this complete backwards. Jesus was not saying, if you want to understand Me, read the Old Testament. He was saying, if you want to understand the Old Testament, read Me.

People still don't understand the Old Testament, because they see something different from the Old Testament than they do in the New. It is because God was not understood that Jesus came, which the quotes I provided point out. No one ever understood the Old Testament as clearly as Jesus did.

Consider Hebrews 1. What you are wanting to do is to prefer the dim light of a candle to the blazing light of the Son.

You haven't answered my questions. I'll repeat them.

The first question I have is where did Jesus Christ, during His ministry on earth, teach that God did not have the legal right to forgive us unless He died. If you want to try to answer this from some other part of Scripture, go ahead, but that doesn't answer my question, which is where did Jesus, during His ministry on earth, teach this (although, in reality, nowhere in Scripture teaches this idea, which didn't even exist at the time Scripture was written, the idea not being invented for centuries afterwards. The Eastern Orthodox church *still* does not have this idea, because it split off from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm.)

The other two question, which I have been asking you are:



and



From what you have written, I think I can make a good guess as to how you would answer the second question. I think you would say that God was misunderstood because of the influence of the Jewish leaders, which is why it was necessary for Jesus to reveal the truth about God.

However, I can't see that you've addressed the other two questions in any way. I take your refusal to cite anything from Jesus' life and teachings during His ministry on earth as tacit agreement that there is nothing to cite; that is, He didn't teach these things. If you disagree with this assessment, please cite something.

Regarding the third question, I don't think you've in any way addressed this. I'm very interested in what your thoughts are on this.

Tom, the idea that what Jesus said and did in the OT is not as valid as what He said and did in the NT is totally bogus. Perhaps this is not what you're saying, but that's what it sounds like to me. You keep insisting that I quote Jesus in the NT to support penal and substitutionary atonement as if what He said elsewhere carries less weight. The following passages confirm the truth.

John
7:30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
8:20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
12:23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
12:27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

Galatians
3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:

Isaiah
53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
53:5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.
53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Jesus instructed the Jews to confess their sins upon a sacrificial lamb to obtain forgiveness. You seem to be saying forgiveness was available without a penal substitute. Am I hearing you right?

That Sister White believed in penal substitution is clear from the following passages

AG 139
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

1BC 1082
Adam listened to the words of the tempter, and yielding to his insinuations, fell into sin. Why was not the death penalty at once enforced in his case?--Because a ransom was found. God's only begotten Son volunteered to take the sin of man upon Himself, and to make an atonement for the fallen race. There could have been no pardon for sin had this atonement not been made. Had God pardoned Adam's sin without an atonement, sin would have been immortalized, and would have been perpetuated with a boldness that would have been without restraint (RH April 23, 1901). {1BC 1082.6}

1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7}

MM, regarding the passages from John, Galatians, and Isaiah, only one of these is from Jesus' life and teaching, and none of them say what you are saying. None of them teach that God could not legally pardon us unless Christ died. Where do you see even a hint of this?

Since I asked you cite something from Jesus' life, and you did quote something from John, let's take a look at that.



You'll have to explain why you quoted this one. This seems to be speaking of God's providential care of Jesus, and has nothing to do with God's obtaining a legal right to pardon, right?



??? Same question on this one. What were you thinking in citing this?



Same question. These so totally have nothing to do with Jesus' having to die so that God could have a legal right to pardon, that I don't even know how to begin. Please provide some idea of what you were thinking.

Regarding the Old Testament, my point was that surely Jesus, during His ministry, would have explained the meaning and purpose of His death. How could this possibly not be the case, given the place His death holds to the Gospel and the Plan of Salvation. So I'm simply asking you, where in His ministry did He teach what you say it true? This is a reasonable request, isn't it?

MM, I've asked you two questions, several times now, which are as follows:



I assume your answer to the first one is yes, you recognize this, and you would give as a reason that Jesus needed to counteract the influence of the Jewish leaders. This is a conjecture based on other things you have said. You could acknowledge that you agree with this, if I've guessed your point of view correctly here, or, if not, state what your point of view really is.

Regarding the second, I have no idea what your thoughts are, and, as I stated, I'm very interested in knowing your thoughts regarding what Jesus said.


Thank you,

Tom

On the EGW quotes, we've already talked about the first quote. The second quote says:



This gives the reason why the death of Christ was necessary. There's nothing here about it being necessary in order for God to have the legal right to pardon. It says that had Christ not died, sin would have been perpetuated.

The third quote says, "In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" which seems to be conveying the same idea as the second. It was necessary for man to see the consequences of sin (which is death) in order for sin not to be perpetuated. If sin were perpetuated, justice would hardly be satisfied, and this answers the first quote as well.

Something you need to keep in mind is that if sin required death in order for God to have the legal right to pardon, then Christ would have had to die in order for God to pardon Lucifer, which is something EGW clearly does not agree with.

I've also asked you several times if you read the Fifield quotes I provided, and suggested that we could discuss something in what they say that you might find interesting. I think Fifield did an excellent job of explaining the theory of the atonement, and that his explanation is fully in harmony with Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.

Waggoner, of whom EGW said, "he can teach righteousness by faith better than I can" wrote:



The Eastern Orthodox do not hold to the Penal Substitution idea. Do you know why not? It's because they split from the Roman Catholic church *before* Anselm, who intruded the idea. If the idea had been from Scripture, they would hold to it, in addition to the Catholics. Either that or you have to argue that Anselm discovered a truth from Scripture which had been lost until about A.D. 1100, which EGW describes as the noon time of the papacy and midnight for the world (actually, she was quoting someone else).

Tom, let's discuss penal substitution on the thread created for that purpose.

TE: Do you recognize that there was a necessity for Jesus to come in the flesh in order to reveal God to us?

MM: Yes. The "his hour" quotes I posted point out another reason why Jesus came in the flesh - to die, to pay our sin debt of death.

TE: Changing tacks a bit, but as a response to your questions about the Old Testament, how do you understand this?

MM: As I said the first time, not once did Jesus contradict what He taught in the OT.

TE: Something you need to keep in mind is that if sin required death in order for God to have the legal right to pardon, then Christ would have had to die in order for God to pardon Lucifer, which is something EGW clearly does not agree with.

MM: It is your opinion, Tom, that Sister White taught God was willing to pardon Lucifer's willful sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus.

TE: I've also asked you several times if you read the Fifield quotes I provided, and suggested that we could discuss something in what they say that you might find interesting.

MM: Please cite what you think is interesting.

TE: I agree with Fifield's explanations, who was a contemporary of Ellen White. Here are a couple of quotes:





TE: I see his writing to be in harmony with hers. For example, not his explanation of "atonement" as "at-one-ment" (the same as hers). Also his remarks brings to mind the following quote of EGW:

Ok.



Good! Why was it necessary for Jesus to reveal God to us?



Two things. First of all, the question you were asked was if you recognized that it was necessary for Jesus to come in order to reveal God. To answer this question "yes," and then cite texts which make some different point which wasn't asked is at best confusing.

Second of all, where did Jesus say that He came to pay our sin debt? It's certainly not in the texts you cited.

To be clear, that Jesus paid our sin debt I don't necessarily find objectionable (I can post why, if you're interested). The idea that the death of Jesus was necessary in order for God to have the legal right to pardon is what I've been objecting to.

You've been making this claim, but haven't produced any evidence from Jesus' life or teaching that this is the case. You just cited some things that said His time to die had not come.



That's an interesting observation, but what do you think the text that I cited means? That was my question. You're just making an observation about what it doesn't mean.



She recounted the fall of Lucifer in detail, explaining what happened step by step. She writes that Lucifer was offered pardon again and again, and given the opportunity to confess his sin. She does not write that Jesus died.

I don't think I would use the word "taught," as she wasn't writing didactically. I would say she wrote that Lucifer was offered pardon again and again, and given the opportunity to confess his sin, with no mention of Jesus' death being made (and we know for a fact that Jesus had not died).



Ok. Here's something interesting:

I find the name of this topic, "Are there any excuses for sinning?", most interesting.

If there were an excuse for even one sin, then wouldn't the devil have a solid footing in his accusations against God?

TE: Why was it necessary for Jesus to reveal God to us?

MM: Because for various reasons people are confused.

TE: ... what do you think the text that I cited means?

MM: The "eye for an eye" clause was part of the judicial system. It was administered under a theocracy. Under Roman rule, however, Jews often took matters into their own hands, without due process of law. Given the circumstances Jesus encouraged them to turn the other cheek.

Exodus
21:23 And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Leviticus
24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
24:20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him [again].

Deuteronomy
19:18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, [if] the witness [be] a false witness, [and] hath testified falsely against his brother;
19:19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
19:20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
19:21 And thine eye shall not pity; [but] life [shall go] for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Matthew
5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

TE: "The life of Christ was not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but that life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely."

MM: The price paid for our sin debt of death was paid to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. "His sacrifice satisfies fully the demands of justice." (FW 103)

His willing sacrifice on our behalf demonstrates the love of God. It motivates us to serve and obey Him. "When we realize that His suffering was necessary in order to secure our eternal well-being, our hearts are touched and melted. He pledged Himself to accomplish our full salvation in a way satisfactory to the demands of God's justice, and consistent with the exalted holiness of His law." (1SM 309)

But the death of Jesus serves more than to simply save us, more than to simply motivate us to love God. Equally important it also serves to maintain the honor and glory of law and justice. His life and death satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice. Law and justice demands that sinners suffer and die for their sins. To save us, therefore, Jesus must obey the law on our behalf and He must suffer and die on our behalf. In this manner, the honor of law and justice are preserved and sinners are saved. Both are equally important. Both are necessary.

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

LHU 24
The blood of beasts could not satisfy the demands of God as an atoning sacrifice for the transgression of His law. The life of a beast was of less value than the life of the offending sinner, therefore could not be a ransom for sin. It could only be acceptable with God as a figure of the offering of His Son. {LHU 24.3}

Christ has made a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of justice. What a price for Heaven to pay to ransom the transgressor of the law of Jehovah. Yet that holy law could not be maintained with any smaller price. . . . The law of God stands vindicated by the suffering and death of the only begotten Son of the infinite God. . . . . The transgression of God's law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. And the nonexecution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the Avenger of justice, which is the habitation and the foundation of His throne. He cannot dispense with His law; He cannot do away with its smallest item in order to meet and pardon sin. The rectitude, justice, and moral excellence of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe and the worlds unfallen. {UL 378}

1SM 363
Christ satisfied the demands of the law in His human nature. He bore the curse of the law for the sinner, made an atonement for him, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. {1SM 363.3}

MM: By living and dying the perfect life and death, Jesus earned the legal right to save us. Law and justice grants Him the legal right to save us.

1SM 309
What right had Christ to take the captives out of the enemy's hands?--The right of having made a sacrifice that satisfies the principles of justice by which the kingdom of heaven is governed. He came to this earth as the Redeemer of the lost race, to conquer the wily foe, and, by His steadfast allegiance to right, to save all who accept Him as their Saviour. On the cross of Calvary He paid the redemption price of the race. And thus He gained the right to take the captives from the grasp of the great deceiver, who, by a lie, framed against the government of God, caused the fall of man, and thus forfeited all claim to be called a loyal subject of God's glorious everlasting kingdom. {1SM 309.4}

Regarding the justice of God being satisfied, the following makes clear how this is accomplished:



Without the death of Christ, sin would have been perpetuated. This is what would have happened had God pardoned Adam's sin without an atonement. Justice would not have been satisfied.

Fifield, in the same sermon quoted from the 1897 GCB in the other thread, also comments on this idea:



Regarding the statement, "You have heard it said eye for eye and tooth for tooth, but I say unto you, if someone smites you, turn the other cheek" I find it very interesting that you comment that "given the circumstances" Jesus encouraged them to turn the other cheek. Unfortunately, this is missing the point Jesus was trying to communicate.



The principle Christ enunciated was not a recommendation, but a reflection of His own character!

Law and justice demands of God the death of sinners. Pardon is not a substitute for the death penalty. Death must happen. Jesus paid our sin debt of death to law and justice. His death was required. There was no other way to save us.

---

Jesus wasn't abrogating the "eye for an eye" law. Instead, He was addressing an abuse of it.

MM, please provide some motivation for what you believe, which is to say, a reason why. For example, consider the following:



This makes perfect sense. This explains why death was necessary. Sin would have been perpetuated without death.

I'm not seeing any reasoning similar to this in your explanations. I see you say, "I don't know why this is this way, but it is." or "I don't understand this" or "I can't explain this." We should have a reason for things we believe, so we can explain them reasonably to others. Again, I find what EGW wrote above here to make perfect sense.

Regarding Christ's statement to turn the other cheek, I still think you're missing the point. As the quote I provided stated, the principle Christ espoused was one He lived. He wasn't addressing the proper use of "eye for eye," but was revealing the character of God, which is not "eye for eye," but "turn the other cheek."



Please take another look at the quote I provided. It's a beautiful idea being expressed.

You realize if God followed the "eye for eye" principle that we'd all be lost, don't you?

TE: You realize if God followed the "eye for eye" principle that we'd all be lost, don't you?

MM: Tom, who do you think invented the law of "an eye for an eye"?

TE: This makes perfect sense. This explains why death was necessary. Sin would have been perpetuated without death.

MM: You are taking this out of context. Jesus' death was necessary because law and justice required it of God to save sinners. To pardon sinners without the death of Jesus would perpetuate sinning.

Here's the quote:



What am I taking out of context? I pointed out that the statement "Had God pardoned Adam's sin without an atonement, sin would have been immortalized, and would have been perpetuated" makes perfect sense. What's not in context?

As I pointed out earlier, it seems to me that EGW is saying the same thing Fifield is saying here:

TE: What am I taking out of context?

MM: Here is what makes sense to me:

She asks, "Why was not the death penalty at once enforced in his case?" In other words,, Why didn't God enforce the death penalty, as promised, the instant A&E sinned? Why did He pardon them instead of execute them? What was the legal basis of His decision? How did He justify it?

The answer is short and sweet, "Because a ransom was found." Someone else died in their place, namely, the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Law and justice demand of God death for sin and pardon. Mere pardon is not enough; the Son of God must die in consequence of sinning.

"God's only begotten Son volunteered to take the sin of man upon Himself, and to make an atonement for the fallen race. There could have been no pardon for sin had this atonement not been made."

The "atonement" mentioned here is in reference to the death penalty. Jesus paid our sin debt of death through penal substitution. It was paid in full to law and justice.

"Had God pardoned Adam's sin without an atonement, sin would have been immortalized, and would have been perpetuated with a boldness that would have been without restraint."

In other words, if God had pardoned A&E without shedding the blood of Jesus, sinning would have been immortalized. Law and justice would have been undermined.

MM: I take it you believe Jesus invented this law. If so, why, then, do you believe He rescinded it when He was here in the flesh?

She says that sinning would have been perpetuated. That is, it would have continued. Her logic is the same as Fifield's.



Especially note the last paragraph. This is the same point EGW is making.

This isn't an answer to my question.

Following in the vein of answering a question with a question, what do you think of the law of divorce? Who instituted that? Why, then, did Jesus say that anyone who left their spouse, other than for adultery was guilty of adultery? Was He contradicting His own law here?

(I'm answering your question with these questions because the same principle applies to both this situation and the "eye for an eye" one.)

Do you acknowledge the point that turning the other cheek was not something Jesus was speaking about doing in special circumstances, but was, in fact, simply a revelation of how Jesus lived His own life (and thus, a revelation of God's character)?

I've already explained what I think about Jesus' comments regarding an "eye for an eye". Such judicial laws apply to a theocrasy, which did not exist while Jesus was here in the flesh. In the end, the principl behind such laws will be executed in the lake of fire when sinners suffer in proportion to their sinfulness.

Jesus' comment that one should turn the other cheek was not said, as you suggested, because the principle of eye for eye was being misapplied, but was rather an expression of the principles by which His own life was led, as the Spirit of Prophecy stated.

You are entitled to your opinion. One thing is certain - He was not debunking an "eye for an eye".

MM, here's the statement again.



Regarding an eye for an eye, I asked you if you realized we would be lost if God followed this principle. I don't think you've answered this question, have you?

From 1 Cor. 13

In a recent post, I asked some questions:

What do you think of the law of divorce? Who instituted that? Why, then, did Jesus say that anyone who left their spouse, other than for adultery was guilty of adultery? Was He contradicting His own law here?

(I'm answering your question with these questions because the same principle applies to both this situation and the "eye for an eye" one.)

Do you acknowledge the point that turning the other cheek was not something Jesus was speaking about doing in special circumstances, but was, in fact, simply a revelation of how Jesus lived His own life (and thus, a revelation of God's character)?

(end of quote from previous post)
-----------------------------------------------------


Please address these questions. I want to address your point about Jesus' "debunking" eye for eye and tooth for tooth, but would like to respond to my questions on divorce to do so.

Also I'm curious if you recognize that when Jesus said to turn the other cheek, He was simply enunciated a principle by which He lived His life. Your saying that I'm entitled to my opinion doesn't really answer this question.

Jesus established the laws regulating divorce and remarriage. They still apply today. He did not change them.

Jesus did not abolish the "eye for an eye" principle when He spoke of turning the other cheek. Both reflect God's character.

I'm sorry, MM, but I'm not understanding either of your answers to my questions. In the OT the Israelites were allowed to divorce if they followed a certain procedure. Are these the laws regulating divorce and remarriage you are talking about? Or are you talking about what Jesus said in the Gospels?

Regarding turning the other cheek, my question to you has been the following:



You write that two different things which are mutually exclusive both reflect God's character, which I suppose could be taken as your recognizing that when Jesus said to turn the other cheek, He was simply enunciating a principle by which He lived His life. However, your statement would also be implying that Jesus lived His life by the principle of an eye for an eye, which is obviously not true.

Tom, I do not make a distinction between what Jesus said in the OT and what He said in the NT. It is the word of God - all of it. Not once did He contradict Himself. What He said about divorce and remarriage in the OT is upheld in the NT.

And "eye for an eye" and turning the other cheek both reflect the love and glory of God's character. Jesus demonstrated these truths all thoughout the OT and NT. It is true, though, while He was here in the flesh, He did not rule as Sovereign of the universe. He came to die our death on the cross. The next time He comes, however, He will unsheath the sword of the Lord.

You should! Jesus did! That's why He said, "you have heard it said X, *but* I say unto you Y." Y was better than X. This is Jesus' point, pretty obvious by the way He spoke. It's hard to miss this in fact.



Jesus said that certain accommodations were made for divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. God is gracious. However, Jesus explained what the ideal was, and God's true idea regarding marriage and divorce.

God hates divorce. That was just as true in the time of Moses as in the time of Jesus. When Jesus came in the flesh, He explained the ideal, which He was able to live out in His life to give more force to.



These are mutually contradictory, dude! You can't both not retaliate against someone (turn the other cheek) and retaliate against him (eye for eye). These are two fundamentally and diametrically opposed modus operandi. The fact that these are different, in addition to being obvious, is brought out by the fact that Jesus said "BUT I say unto you." The "but" highlights that these are different ways to act.



When He comes again, His character will be identical to what it was in the flesh. He wasn't putting on a show, but opening the window to His soul. God is greatly misunderstood, but He is no more a vengeful, militaristic God now than He was then. It sounds like you are enunciating the identical misapprehensions about God that the Jews had.

I can see throughout Jesus' life that He illustrated the principle of "turn the other cheek," but where did He live by "eye for eye"?

The principle of "turn the other cheek" springs forth from agape, the selfless, self-giving love of God. God is agape. God turns the other cheek because He is agape.

In the OT Jesus ordered Moses to kill a Sabbath breaker, the guy caught gatehring sticks for a fire. When did Jesus demonstate this prnciple while here in the flesh?

You must have some point in mind. Please make your point. Also, you could address the points I made in the post above yours.

I need to you answer the question so I can make the point and answer your other ponts.

When did Jesus order anyone to kill sabbath breakers while here in the flesh like He did with Moses and the guy caught gathering sticks?

This was an accommodation made for the same reason as the rules regarding divorce; i.e. "because of the hardness of your hearts."

Wait a minute here. Are you saying that God changed His mind between the OT and NT? Was Jesus saying, "Well, I know I told you this at Sinai, but forget about that. I have a new idea"?

Don't you think it's more likely that the problem was not what God commanded in the OT, but what the people thought He meant by it? And in the NT, Jesus is merely sweeping away the rubbish of human error, rather than retracting His own erroneous command?

The problem wasn't with God. God had to make certain accommodations, because of the hardness of their heart.



This is also true, in addition to God's making certain accommodations.



Let's consider Jesus' own words:



Ellen White comments:



As there had been wrong ideas in regards to marriage, so there were wrong ideas in regards to the treatment of man. "Eye for eye" was a necessary civil statute, but did not constitute God's plan for how we should treat one another. It, because of the hardness of man's heart, similar to the case for marriage, was a gracious concession on the part of God, but not His idea, which Jesus expressed:



We are children of our heavenly father not by applying the principle of "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth," but the principle of "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you."

To get to the actual point of making a distinction between the Old and New Testament, your point is right on. The problem is not with the Old Testament, but with how people interpret it. God is greatly misunderstood, believed to act in ways totally out of character to what we see in Christ. Christ came to reveal the truth about God, and that truth is seen so clearly in Christ that it can be said:



Paul wrote that Jesus was the express image of the Father (Heb. 1:3), and John wrote that no one has seen God at any time, His only begotten Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what He is really like. (John 1:18).

A beautiful passage from "The Desire of Ages" echoing this theme says:



So, yes, Arnold, I agree with you that the problem is not the Old Testament, but how it has been misinterpreted. We are just as susceptible to misinterpreting it as the Jews were. Christ interpreted it perfectly, both in His words and life. His purpose was the revelation of God, and He succeeded to such an extent that EGW wrote that *all* (think of that, all!!) that man can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.

Now I have been challenging MM to support his views about God from the life and character of Christ during His earthly ministry, which should be a reasonable thing to do if all that can be known about God really was revealed in the life and character of His Son. Not able to do so, MM goes to the Old Testament instead, and seems to me to be repeating the very misunderstandings that Jesus came to correct!

MM claims not to make a distinction between what Jesus says in the Old Testament, but if this were really true He should be able to find what he's looking for in the New Testament. If he can only find it in the Old, then obviously he's making a distinction. If he sees a difference, it's because he has a misconception of the old, and so should give preference to what Jesus said in the New, since His whole purpose was to correct the mistakes that men were making.

This is what I had in mind by my response. I probably should have written a more detailed response to MM, since what I wrote could be taken the wrong way.

Tom, if God ordered Moses to kill a sabbath breaker because of the hardness of his heart, what has changed? Our hearts are still hard, right? Nevertheless, there is no excuse for sinning. The breaking the sabbath was inexcusable. Killing him was right and righteous. God didn't order his death by compromising because of unusual circumstances. Killing sinners is right. Mercy and forgiveness is right, too.

TE: Not able to do so, MM goes to the Old Testament instead, and seems to me to be repeating the very misunderstandings that Jesus came to correct!

MM: Jesus' mission here in the flesh was not the same as it was in the OT, nor was it the same as it will be when He returns. Jesus came here in sinful flesh to show us how to love God and to obey His laws. He did not come to demonstrate how a judge metes out justice under a theocracy. Nor did He come to reward us according to our words and works.

Jesus' mission in the New Testament was the revelation of God. It was to "rectify mistakes" that people had.

According to EGW "all" (that is to say, everything) that man can know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ's life and character during His earthly ministry.

If you look at the DA quote I cited (and the previous paragraph), it says that man was deceived by Satan's misrepresentations about God, and that Jesus came, not primarily to show us how to live (He certainly did do this, but this wasn't His primary mission) to reveal the truth about God, and so complete was His revelation that EGW says that "all" that man can "know about God" was revealed in the life and character of His Son.

Another way of putting this is that we do not need to go to the Old Testament to understand some aspect of God's character which we do not see revealed in Jesus Christ. If this were necessary, then EGW's statement that "all" that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son would be false.

I'm just acknowledging that I read this. I'll just comment on this one part:



Do you kill them first, and then forgive and have mercy on them? Or forgive and have mercy on them first, and then kill them?

Are you excusing God's order to kill the sabbath breaker?

Are you saying Jesus misrepresented God in the OT?

No to both questions.

Do you kill sinners first, and then have mercy on them? Or have mercy on them first, and then kill them?

It's funny that you apparently don't see that you are believing things which are mutually exclusive. That you say things like this:



should be an alert to consider if there might be something that's not fitting in your paradigm.

BTW, that was Jesus giving the commands in the OT. Let's not forget that. If there's a contradiction, Jesus was contradicting Himself!

Another thing I want to settle early on is this:
So, there cannot be a dichotomy between the OT and NT. If there's a discrepancy or contradiction, it means that we are misunderstanding either the OT or NT or both. God does not contradict Himself, but we often misunderstand what He means.

It really doesn't matter who it was, since when we've seen Jesus, we've seen the Father.

The contradiction is between how God was perceived in the OT, and what He is really like. Jesus came in the flesh to rectify these errors.

Even the holy angels, before Christ's mission on earth, had things they didn't understand, so it's no surprise that we get things about the Old Testament confused.

Of course God does not contradict Himself. The fault has to lie with our misunderstanding. Only one person understood that Old Testament correctly, which was Jesus Christ. In Him we see what the truth looks like. As I pointed out in the previous post, even holy angels had things they were confused about until Christ came here in the flesh, so again, it's no surprise that we weren't getting it.

It we see differences between what we see in the Old Testament God and what we see in Christ, that's a sign that we're misunderstanding something. Anything recorded in the Old Testament about God we should be able to see in Christ, or we're missing something, since Christ was a complete revelation of God.

Don't forget the possibility that we can misunderstand Christ. It has happened before.

These quotes are from the book "Is God to Blame" by Greg Boyd.

These last two posts bring out what I've been trying to communicate.

So, you're not excusing God's order to kill the sabbath breaker. Does that mean you agree with it, that it was right for God to order his execution, that it was right not to be merciful and offer him forgiveness?

And, you also agree Jesus did not misreperesent God in the OT. Does that mean you agree with the laws Jesus established in the OT, that you think the "eye for an eye" principle correctly represents the character of God?

Earlier on this thread someone questioned whether God considered us guilty of sinning if we were ignorant of it. Here is the answer: "Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity."

Leviticus
17And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

18And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him.

19It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the LORD.

Did you read the posts I wrote MM? It took time to write them. I thought both were filled with beautiful thoughts. Do you have any comment on them?

Regarding eye for an eye, Jesus said:



Ellen White comments:



When Jesus said, you have heard it said, eye for eye and tooth for tooth BUT I say unto you, if someone strikes you in the cheek, turn the other cheek, what do you think the purpose of the BUT is? Do you not understand that "eye for eye" is man's way, the justice of man, while "turn the other cheek" "give your shirt as well" "walk the second mile" is God's way, and the justice of God?

Regarding the sabbath provisions, I see this as the same thing as the divorce statute. God's ideal is seen in Jesus Christ. ALL that we can know about God was revealed in Jesus' life and character while here in the flesh, which is to say everything, nothing missing, nothing left out, the whole picture.

What was the principle that Jesus lived His life by? Was it eye for eye? Or was it turn the other cheek?

I say both. He turned the other cheek, and we slapped that one also. Then He put His eye in place of ours.

Arnold, nice comments.

"Eye for eye" means to retaliate. "Eye for eye" was a vast improvement over "life for eye." God limited the retaliation to the wrong that was inflicted. But this was never God's way. God's way was to extend mercy, to forgive, to turn the other cheek, to love the one doing the evil, to return kindness for harshness etc.

TE: Did you read the posts I wrote MM? It took time to write them. I thought both were filled with beautiful thoughts. Do you have any comment on them?

MM: I missed them. Sorry. Yes, beautiful thoughts. I agree Jesus demonstrated wonderful things about our heavenly Father. But I also happen to know He didn't come here in the flesh to judge sinners in accordance with the laws He established in the OT. NOr did He come here in the flesh to reward us according to our words and works. Instead, He came here to show us why and how to love and obey God, and to pay our sin debt of death.

TE: What was the principle that Jesus lived His life by? Was it eye for eye? Or was it turn the other cheek?

MM: He upheld both. Both are right and righteous. But while here in the flesh He did not execute justice in accordance with the laws He Himself established in righteousness. This He will do when He returns.

BTW, you didn't answer the following questions (based on what you've posted I assume your answers are - Yes):

So, you're not excusing God's order to kill the sabbath breaker. Does that mean you agree with it, that it was right for God to order his execution, that it was right not to be merciful and offer him forgiveness?

And, you also agree Jesus did not misrepresent God in the OT. Does that mean you agree with the laws Jesus established in the OT, that you think the "eye for an eye" principle correctly represents the character of God?

TE: Did you read the posts I wrote MM? It took time to write them. I thought both were filled with beautiful thoughts. Do you have any comment on them?

MM: I missed them. Sorry. Yes, beautiful thoughts. I agree Jesus demonstrated wonderful things about our heavenly Father. But I also happen to know He didn't come here in the flesh to judge sinners in accordance with the laws He established in the OT. NOr did He come here in the flesh to reward us according to our words and works. Instead, He came here to show us why and how to love and obey God, and to pay our sin debt of death.

You're omitting the primary reason for Christ's having come, which was neither of these things.

TE: What was the principle that Jesus lived His life by? Was it eye for eye? Or was it turn the other cheek?

MM: He upheld both. Both are right and righteous. But while here in the flesh He did not execute justice in accordance with the laws He Himself established in righteousness. This He will do when He returns.

These are two contrary forms of justice. One is human justice, and the other divine. That they are different, not harmonious systems, is brought out by Jesus' use of the word BUT (not AND, but BUT).

You have heard it said, "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" (the ways of human justice) BUT I say unto you, if someone strikes you on the cheek, turn the other cheek,... walk the second mile ... love your enemies .... pray for them that despitefully use you. (the ways of divine justice).

Let's take another look at Sister White's comment:



Why did Ellen White write "BUT it was a civil statute"? Because she was explaining the answer to the implied question of if "eye for eye" is not the way to go, if there is a better way, then why was it given in the first place? The BUT indicates that it is not a divine principle (which she gets to right after this sentence), but a human principle, a "civil statute."

Do you see the two different principles involved, one human and one divine? Do you see how the one system is but a civil statute, whereas the other is a divine principle by which Christ lived His life?

You will find no statement that says of "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" that this was a principle by which Christ lived His life. Why not? Because it is not divine justice. It is not a principle of God's kingdom. It is not a part of the divine character.

BTW, you didn't answer the following questions (based on what you've posted I assume your answers are - Yes):

So, you're not excusing God's order to kill the sabbath breaker. Does that mean you agree with it, that it was right for God to order his execution, that it was right not to be merciful and offer him forgiveness?

And, you also agree Jesus did not misrepresent God in the OT. Does that mean you agree with the laws Jesus established in the OT, that you think the "eye for an eye" principle correctly represents the character of God?

I addressed the sabbath commandment in saying that I see it to be the same thing in principle as the commandments relating to divorce. Much of the Mosaic law was an gracious accommodation of the part of God, due to "the hardness of their ("your" orig) hearts".

In now way does the "eye for an eye" principle correctly represent the character of God. The character of God is represented by Jesus Christ, and "eye for an eye" is nowhere to be seen in His life. Instead we read:



What is "this principle"? Not "eye for eye," but the other one, the principle that "eye for eye" was contrasted with.

The logic is easy to follow, MM.

a)Jesus said, you have heard it said, "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" BUT I say unto you (the contrasting principle of returning good for evil).

b)EGW points out that "eye for eye" was a civil statute, but Jesus lived His life not according to this principle but rather according to the other principle, the BUT principle, of His statement.

It's as clear as sunlight that these are two competing principles, one of which is human, the other divine.

Actually, the MB 70 quote tells me that it was not retaliation, but a punitive action by the civil govt. And since they were a theocracy, it was God meting out the justice. If so, then "eye for eye" is God's way.

BUT, the people were never placed in the position to make that judgment. "None were justified in avenging themselves," even in the OT.

But what happened? Well, people took it upon themselves to decide when to mete out punishment upon transgressors. They put themselves in the Judge's seat.

So Jesus straightened them out: You like to enforce "eye for eye." Stop it! That's not your job. Your job is to turn the other cheek.

Does that mean that God doesn't do "eye for eye" anymore? He does. In fact, He did "life for eye" - His Son's life for my eye! Here we find justice and mercy kissing.

So again, the God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT. Furthermore, His requirements in the OT were the same as the NT. It's just that we have a hard time meeting what He requires because we like to go our own way, trust our own judgment.

"Eye for eye" is obviously retaliation. What could be a clearer enunciation of the principle of retaliation than this? This isn't to say that retaliation is of necessity bad. Obviously human society could not function if there were no punishment for wrongdoers. But it's not a principle of the divine character. It's a human necessity, or accommodation.



It would be a huge mistake, IMO, to view Israel of the OT as God's ideal. God had to make all sorts of accommodations to deal with a backward, stubborn, people.



The whole point is that "eye for eye" is not a divine principle. This is not divine justice. If I had more time, I could go into more detail regarding this. Maybe later tonight.

If you look through the Old Testament, you will see that justice is viewed as acts of mercy, acts of goodness, such as feeding the hungry, taking care of the widow and the orphan, clothing the naked. Never is violence equated with justice, however, God takes issue with violence on a number of occasions, contrasting it with justice.

In Zechariah 7:9 we read:



Divine justice is administered by way of mercy and compassion, not by eye for eye.

I'm confused why you would classify "life for eye" as "eye for eye." "Life for eye" is not retribution, which is correct. Christ gave Himself for us. He died in our place. God so loved us that He gave His Son. None of these constructions are "eye for eye."



Our judgment is exactly the problem. Human judgment is "eye for eye." God's judgment is "life for eye" as you put it. It is turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off your back, love your enemy, etc. This is exactly the point Ellen White makes when she points out that the Old Testament said these very things.

Justice in the Old Testament is redemptive. It is restorative. It is administered by mercy and compassion.

Tom, neither Jesus nor Sister White abrogated the civil laws Jesus established in the OT. When Jesus ordered Moses to kill the sabbath breaker He was acting in harmony with the character of God. Nothing can be clearer.

Earlier on this thread someone questioned whether God considered us guilty of sinning if we were ignorant of it. Here is the answer: "Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity."

Leviticus
17And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

18And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him.

19It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the LORD.

This is a red herring.



It's a great pity you feel this way. This is no more an expression of God's character than the permission granted to divorce one's wife was a revelation of God's character. In Malachi, we read that God hates divorce (and anyone who knows God would know this). Why then did "Jesus order Moses" (to put things in your words) to allow divorce? Is this a revelation of God's character as one who divorces?

No, it was because of the hardness of their hearts, as Jesus explained.

God is not a killer! This is not His character. Consider the following:



This goes along with the following:

MM, what is your take on the following (especially the underlined part).

Tom, if ordering Moses to kill the sabbath breaker was not in harmony with God's character, why, then, did Jesus command it? Because Moses was chomping at the bit to kill him, so Jesus gave in and commanded it?

If giving Jews permission to divorce was not in harmony with God's character, why, then, did Jesus allow it? Because of the hardness of their hearts? Does that mean Jesus gave in and allowed it? What kind of God gives in to human pressure?

TE: MM, what is your take on the following (especially the underlined part): Said the angel, "If light comes, and that light is set aside, or rejected, then comes condemnation and the frown of God; but before the light comes there is no sin, for there is no light for them to reject."

MM: It means God does not hold us accountable for the sins we commit in ignorance. The reason God is able to “wink at” sins of ignorance is due to the fact Jesus paid the sin debt of death for it. God cannot simply “wink at” sins of ignorance. Law and justice demand death for sin.

Leviticus
5:17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist [it] not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
5:18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist [it] not, and it shall be forgiven him.
5:19 It [is] a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the LORD.

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

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

Hebrews
9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

I'm not following you here. The angel said, "before the light comes, THERE IS NO SIN, for there is no light for them to reject." (emphasis mine).

If there is no sin, how could there be any debt that needs to be paid?

In regards to the OT texts, no one interpreted these texts as implying that these sacrifices were necessary in order for God to obtain a legal right to pardon. That is, no Hebrew understood this, this explanation is not given anywhere in the New Testament, and even today this interpretation is not given anywhere that I am aware, other than by you.

Here, for example, is something from a cite discussing Wesley's views of sins of ignorance:



http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/21-25/22-04.htm

Tom, if ordering Moses to kill the sabbath breaker was not in harmony with God's character, why, then, did Jesus command it? Because Moses was chomping at the bit to kill him, so Jesus gave in and commanded it?

If giving Jews permission to divorce was not in harmony with God's character, why, then, did Jesus allow it? Because of the hardness of their hearts? Does that mean Jesus gave in and allowed it? What kind of God gives in to human pressure?

TE: I'm not following you here. The angel said, "before the light comes, THERE IS NO SIN, for there is no light for them to reject." (emphasis mine).

MM: People who are unfamiliar with the truths regulating sabbath observance are indeed guilty of breaking the sabbath. "Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity." God does not hold them accountable because Jesus paid their sin debt of death. Once people become aware of sabbath keeping they are required to repent of their former transgressions. The fact they are required to kill an animal is evidence they are guilty of sinning.

Leviticus
5:17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

Here's what Jesus said about divorce.



What do you think this means?

TE: What do you think this means?

MM: It was Jesus, not Moses, who created the laws regulating divorce. Moses merely repeated what Jesus said. While here in the flesh, Jesus corrected Jewish perversions of the laws He Himself created, laws which take into account the fact sinners are hardhearted.

I agree with the following insights:


The plan of salvation makes it possible for married people to live happily, to endure attacks against them, attacks calculated to cause separation and divorce.

Adultery is not an excuse to get divorced. Even in the case of adultery, the grace of God is sufficient to repair the damage and to restore marital bliss.

But in cases where adultery is irreconcilable, divorce may be the best way to resolve the dispute. In such cases, remarriage is in harmony with the laws of God.

TE: I'm not following you here. The angel said, "before the light comes, THERE IS NO SIN, for there is no light for them to reject." (emphasis mine).

MM: People who are unfamiliar with the truths regulating sabbath observance are indeed guilty of breaking the sabbath. "Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity." God does not hold them accountable because Jesus paid their sin debt of death. Once people become aware of sabbath keeping they are required to repent of their former transgressions. The fact they are required to kill an animal is evidence they are guilty of sinning.

Leviticus
5:17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

Tom, if ordering Moses to kill the sabbath breaker was not in harmony with God's character, why, then, did Jesus command it?

Was it because Moses was chomping at the bit to kill him, thus Jesus gave in and commanded it?

I'm not following you here. Jesus said that because of the hardness of their hearts, Moses permitted them to divorce their wives. He then explained what the true ideal was.

The Israelites were a backward, ignorant, stubborn people. God graciously accommodated them in their ignorance and recalcitrance. However, when Christ came in the flesh, we see the truth about God in full splendor. As EGW puts it:



If you're trying to find out what God is like, and the kingdom of God, by focusing on Israel, you're focusing in the wrong place!

"Turning from all lesser representations, we behold God in Jesus."

To address you sabbath question, I see it as being like the laws regarding divorce.

God's character was revealed by Christ. Christ did not reveal God as a killer, but as One who loves His enemies, and forgives:

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

TE: I'm not following you here. The angel said, "before the light comes, THERE IS NO SIN, for there is no light for them to reject." (emphasis mine).

MM: People who are unfamiliar with the truths regulating sabbath observance are indeed guilty of breaking the sabbath. "Though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity." God does not hold them accountable because Jesus paid their sin debt of death. Once people become aware of sabbath keeping they are required to repent of their former transgressions. The fact they are required to kill an animal is evidence they are guilty of sinning.

Leviticus
5:17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

Tom, if ordering Moses to kill the sabbath breaker was not in harmony with God's character, why, then, did Jesus command it?

Was it because Moses was chomping at the bit to kill him, thus Jesus gave in and commanded it?

I think we're just going back and forth here. I've answered your Sabbath question quite a number of times, and it keeps coming back.

My position is that the life and character of Jesus Christ, during His ministry on earth, was a full and complete revelation of God's character. When Jesus said, you have heard it said, "eye for eye and tooth for tooth, BUT I say unto you, turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off your back, love your enemies, pray for those who despitefully use you" He was enunciating a superior principle, one based on agape as opposed to eros.

Agape is better than eros. Agape is divine. Eros is not. The principles of the Kingdom of God, expressed by Christ, are better than the principles used to run human governments. Israel was not the ideal. Christ was (and is) the ideal.

Going to the Old Testament to supplement the message of Christ regarding who God is, is a sure way of getting Christ's message wrong.



Then why didn't God hold Lucifer accountable for his ignorance?

TE: Then why didn't God hold Lucifer accountable for his ignorance?

MM: Because he wasn't guilty of sinning.

PP 407
Enraged at this decision, he cursed the judge, and in the heat of passion blasphemed the name of God. He was immediately brought before Moses. The command had been given, "He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:17); but no provision had been made to meet this case. So terrible was the crime that there was felt to be a necessity for special direction from God. The man was placed in ward until the will of the Lord could be ascertained. God Himself pronounced the sentence; by the divine direction the blasphemer was conducted outside the camp and stoned to death. Those who had been witness to the sin placed their hands upon his head, thus solemnly testifying to the truth of the charge against him. Then they threw the first stones, and the people who stood by afterward joined in executing the sentence. {PP 407.5}

TE: The principles of the Kingdom of God, expressed by Christ, are better than the principles used to run human governments. Israel was not the ideal. Christ was (and is) the ideal.

EGW: The Lord chose a people and made them the depositories of His truth. It was His purpose that by the revelation of His character through Israel, men should be drawn to Him. To all the world the gospel invitation was to be given. Through the teaching of the sacrificial service, Christ was to be uplifted before the nations, and all who would look unto Him should live. {8T 25.3}

EGW: Instead of linking himself with the greatness of Egypt, [Moses] chose to bind up his life with God's purpose. Instead of giving laws to Egypt, he by divine direction enacted laws for the world. He became God's instrument in giving to men those principles that are the safeguard alike of the home and of society, that are the cornerstone of the prosperity of nations--principles recognized today by the world's greatest men as the foundation of all that is best in human governments. {Ed 68.4}

EGW: The children of Israel were to occupy all the territory which God appointed them. Those nations that rejected the worship and service of the true God were to be dispossessed. But it was God's purpose that by the revelation of His character through Israel men should be drawn unto Him. To all the world the gospel invitation was to be given. Through the teaching of the sacrificial service Christ was to be uplifted before the nations, and all who would look unto Him should live. All who, like Rahab the Canaanite, and Ruth the Moabitess, turned from idolatry to the worship of the true God, were to unite themselves with His chosen people. As the numbers of Israel increased they were to enlarge their borders, until their kingdom should embrace the world. {COL 290.1}

PP 705, 706
But "when they came to Nachon's threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him there for his rashness; and there he died by the ark of God." A sudden terror fell upon the rejoicing throng. David was astonished and greatly alarmed, and in his heart he questioned the justice of God… The fate of Uzzah was a divine judgment upon the violation of a most explicit command. {PP 705}

Upon Uzzah rested the greater guilt of presumption. Transgression of God's law had lessened his sense of its sacredness, and with unconfessed sins upon him he had, in face of the divine prohibition, presumed to touch the symbol of God's presence. God can accept no partial obedience, no lax way of treating His commandments. By the judgment upon Uzzah He designed to impress upon all Israel the importance of giving strict heed to His requirements. Thus the death of that one man, by leading the people to repentance, might prevent the necessity of inflicting judgments upon thousands. {PP 705.3}

How do you figure? The Lord gave him an opportunity to "confess his sin." What sin was this?

When you quote things from EGW with no comment, I can't respond, since I can't read your mind. It's particularly bad from to quote something by me, and then something by EGW with no comment. It's also bad form for you to ask me questions, and then answer them for me.

If you wish to continue a discussion, you should quit doing these things, specifically the last two.

Make points, ask questions, and so forth. If you quote Ellen White, please offer some comment, so I can respond to whatever point you're wishing to make.

TE: What sin was this?

MM: The quote you are referring to makes it clear Lucifer's thoughts and feelings and tactics and strategy did not become sin until the moment he resolved to pursue his course at all hazards even though he was convinced it was wrong to do so.

TE: When you quote things from EGW with no comment, I can't respond, since I can't read your mind.


You say Jesus does not kill sinners. But here we find Him commanding Moses and the congregation to kill a man. Jesus didn't do this while here in the flesh, so why did He do it back then?

TE: It's particularly bad from to quote something by me, and then something by EGW with no comment. It's also bad form for you to ask me questions, and then answer them for me.


These quotes do not support what you asserted above. Who should we believe? You have a tendency to pass over certain comments and questions, I hope you don't do it again here. That's why I hazarded to answer for you that list of questions posted earlier on this thread. I'm trying to understand your position, but sometimes you make it difficult. I'm sorry if I offended you. I will try not to do it again.

I do not see Jesus excusing sin here. I see Him taking matters into His own hands and killing Uzzah. Jesus did no such thing while here, so why did He do it back then?

TE: What sin was this?

MM: The quote you are referring to makes it clear Lucifer's thoughts and feelings and tactics and strategy did not become sin until the moment he resolved to pursue his course at all hazards even though he was convinced it was wrong to do so.

I'm just asking what sin it was that Lucifer committed that he was given the opportunity to confess.

God's commanding something be done is not God's doing it Himself. This is another subject. It's certainly a reasonable question to ask why God would command something to be done that He wouldn't do Himself, but this is another subject.

I think "MM" would be the answer to your question.

Regarding the quotes not supporting what I asserted, how so? I'm not seeing that. There's nothing in what you quoted that I would read and think, "I don't believe that." You'll have to spell out for me what you have in mind.

[/quote]You have a tendency to pass over certain comments and questions, I hope you don't do it again here.[/quote]

! This is quite a request for you to make considering your thoroughness in responding to my questions and comments compared to mine in response to yours, but OK, I'll try to improve.



Not a good idea. A better idea would be just directing me to the questions.



Thank you. I appreciate that.

I think asking more open ended questions is a better way to understand another's positions, as opposed to a series of yes/no questions. Yes/no questions have presuppositions built into them, whereas an open ended question allows someone to describe their position in their own words.

If all that we can know about God was revealed by Jesus' life and character while here with us in the flesh, during the time in which the "whole purpose of His mission" was to reveal God to us that we might be set right with Him, then we need to be able to find the thing about God we are trying to ascertain THERE.

Jesus Christ came to "rectify errors". These errors were based on misunderstanding the Old Testament. If you are misunderstanding the Old Testament, and Jesus comes for the exact purpose of correcting your errors, so you can properly understand it, but you ignore His life and character and instead go back to the very errors He is trying to correct, I don't understand how this can work. How can Christ rectify errors in this scenario?

Rather than allowing the glorious light of Christ to illumine the misunderstanding, this seems like dimming the light of Christ by misunderstanding.

We're dealing with principles of interpretation here. What I am suggesting is that if all the we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of Christ while here in the flesh, then anything we think we know about God should be found there. That's simple logic. So allow me to ask you, where do you find in Christ's life and character while here in the flesh the idea you think you see in the Old Testament?

From "The Great Controversy" we read:



If the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work by representing what he does as something God is responsible for, don't you think it would be a good idea to consider that this may be exactly what is happening if we have an interpretation in mind where God is represented as visiting punishment? Otherwise, what is the point of her statement?

Here's a simpler answer to this same question. If all that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, and you state "Jesus did no such thing while here," then the logical conclusion is that what you are asserting you see happening is not what happened.

TE: I'm just asking what sin it was that Lucifer committed that he was given the opportunity to confess.

MM: He was given an opportunity to confess that it would be a sin to pursue his course further. It didn't become sin until he pursued it further.

---

TE: God's commanding something be done is not God's doing it Himself.

MM: What? I can hear it now, “Yes, I commanded Moses to kill him, but I am innocent.” Such a claim is laughable at court in downtown St. Louis.

---

TE: Jesus Christ came to "rectify errors". These errors were based on misunderstanding the Old Testament.

MM: Jesus showed Sister White the true understanding in the following quote. It explains why Jesus killed Uzzah. What error are you talking about?

PP 706
Upon Uzzah rested the greater guilt of presumption. Transgression of God's law had lessened his sense of its sacredness, and with unconfessed sins upon him he had, in face of the divine prohibition, presumed to touch the symbol of God's presence. God can accept no partial obedience, no lax way of treating His commandments. By the judgment upon Uzzah He designed to impress upon all Israel the importance of giving strict heed to His requirements. Thus the death of that one man, by leading the people to repentance, might prevent the necessity of inflicting judgments upon thousands. {PP 705.3}

Are you suggesting that Satan is the one who killed Uzzah, that Satan killed Uzzah against the will of God? If so, it implies Satan helped God teach the truth, to prevent people from sinning in the future, to deny Satan the opportunity to kill more people in the future.

---

MM: I do not see Jesus excusing sin here. I see Him taking matters into His own hands and killing Uzzah. Jesus did no such thing while here, so why did He do it back then?

TE: Here's a simpler answer to this same question. If all that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, and you state "Jesus did no such thing while here," then the logical conclusion is that what you are asserting you see happening is not what happened.

MM: On one occasion, He did give people the opportunity to stone a woman, but He knew they wouldn’t do it. But why didn’t He take the time to tell everyone that killing sinners is wrong, that He never intended for them to think such a thing?

---

TE: Otherwise, what is the point of her statement?

MM: She was specifically addressing the destruction of the Jews. She wasn’t explaining all the other places where Jesus Himself killed sinners.

What?! This doesn't make any sense.



She says that Lucifer was given an opportunity to confess his sin, and not be banished from heaven. It's parallel to this:



Had Lucifer confessed his sin, he would have been restored to his position. Before being banished from heaven, Lucifer was given the change to repent. This couldn't possibly be any clearer.

When she writes



this has to be referring to sin he had already committed. There's no other possible way to read this. Ask anyone.

As I pointed out, it's a reasonable question, but it's a different issue. These aren't simply issues, MM. I would say that understanding the commands of God of this sort is quite a bit more difficult to understand than understanding the issues involved in God's supposed active involvement.



She didn't say that God killed Uzzah, did she?

Let's consider the case of the fiery snakes and the destruction of Jerusalem. According to Scripture, God killed the Israelites in both these incidents. However, from EGW, we see that God permitted these things to happen, and we read the following rather stunning comment:



What principle do we use to understand Scripture when it speaks of God's killing people? Do we say, what Scripture says is correct, unless Ellen White says something different? This seems to be the principle you are using. Is it? If not, what principle are you using?





If you don't understand the point, I'll explain this answer, which is a bit cryptic.

You didn't address my point.



What basis would she have of limiting this principle to this one specific case? Why would the great deceiver, only, in this one specific case, be hiding his own work in this way? How does that make sense?

How, from Scripture, could we make the case that the destruction of Jerusalem was actually Satan's doing? Or is that impossible? Do we need Ellen White to understand Scripture correctly here, to be able to discern from God's work and Satan's work?

If you can't tell the difference between God's work and Satan's work without Ellen White, how will you avoid being deceived in the time of the end?

I'd like to see you expound on this topic. It seems hypocritical for God to require something that He would not do Himself.

Yes, it does, which is why I acknowledge that the question is reasonable. If anything, God's commanding another to kill is *worse* than His doing it Himself.

However, of the following three subjects:

a)Penal substitution
b)God's use of violence
c)God's commanding of violence

c) seems quite a bit more difficult than the other two. Since we are already discussing the other two, I'll think I'll pass on c) for now. If we can make any progress (probably on a), which is easier than b)), we can come back to c).

I think your position on penal substitution is firmly founded on your rejection of the idea that God uses violence. Logically, your belief that God does not use violence is the major premise from which you conclude that penal substitution is hogwash. Am I right?

The answer to your question is a bit long.

About 30 years ago, I started to have some questions about God's use of violence. That kind of just stuck in my subconscious until I started posting here about 5 years ago, when others here started to make observations regarding God and violence/force/killing which made sense to me, but I hadn't made any decisions about it, rather than it made some sense to me.

About 4 years ago or so, I went to a SDA conference, and I got into a conversation with someone there who didn't believe in the penal view. As we were talking I had an "aha!" moment where I realized what I believed regarding penal substitution was not in harmony with what I believed about God's character in general (viz a viz force, being like Jesus Christ, that sort of thing). So that's when I started to rethink my support of penal substitution.

As I studied into it, I began to see that there was very little support for it from an historical perspective or Scripture, and, in the case of the latter, particularly in regards to what Jesus Christ lived and taught, on which I became convinced that the Gospel should be based (as opposed to, for example, the idea that Jesus lived the Gospel and Paul explained it).

The specific idea that penal substitution is a problem because of the violence aspect is a more recent idea, probably largely influenced by J. Denny Weaver's book "A Non-Violent Atonement." But even before reading that book, I had already come to the conclusion that there were problems with the penal substitution idea.

A couple of others that were instrumental in my thinking were Ty Gibson and George Fifield (a contemporary of Jones and Waggoner, who had some sermons in the 1897 GCB that blew me away; I first read them around 1990. They also kind of festered in my subconscious for awhile.)

There aren't many SDA's that I know of that agree with my point of view regarding violence. I know a great deal more that agree with my point of view regarding the final judgment and penal substitution (I'm linking these together, because most I know see these as two sides of the same coin; having to do with the question of whether justice/judgment/death at the end comes about as a natural consequence of sin or not. If it's an imposed penalty, rather than a natural consequence, that seems to be more in harmony with the penal substitution idea).

I'm leaving out a lot. If you're interested, I can provide more detail. (For example, the 1888 message had a lot to do with how I conceive of things, and I left that part out.)

Tom, thank you for sharing the background of your views.

Your welcome.

Thanks.

I figured God's use of violence was a major point. I'd like to hash it out one of these days.

I haven't thought about this topic too much, but I have spent a few minutes considering if death is an externally-imposed penalty or the natural consequence of separation from God. I lean toward that latter, but have not found sufficient reason to completely reject violence as part of God's MO.

I think if you take the position that death is not an externally-imposed penalty, you will come to the same conclusions I have in regards to penal substitution and the final judgment. I think these are logically equivalent. I haven't tried to prove that, however. I think I'll think about it and maybe give it a try.

Regarding your question as to why I hold to the idea that penal substitution is not correct, I thought of a simpler answer, which is simply that if it were true, it would say certain things about God which I believe are false.

I'd like to see that. It might clarify some things for me.


Makes sense. Then the task becomes determining which belief is fundamental and which is derived.

I think if you take the position that death is not an externally-imposed penalty, you will come to the same conclusions I have in regards to penal substitution and the final judgment. I think these are logically equivalent. I haven't tried to prove that, however. I think I'll think about it and maybe give it a try.

I'd like to see that. It might clarify some things for me.

Ok. I've thought a little about it, but not much yet. It seems to me that the final judgment part comes immediately. If death is not an externally-imposed penalty, then there is no eternally imposed penalty at the judgment, as the penalty is death, and it's already been agree that this is not externally imposed.

The penal substitution part will require more thought.

Regarding your question as to why I hold to the idea that penal substitution is not correct, I thought of a simpler answer, which is simply that if it were true, it would say certain things about God which I believe are false.

Makes sense. Then the task becomes determining which belief is fundamental and which is derived.


It seems they are rather inextricably interconnected, but certainly one's views regarding God must be the most important consideration, it seems to me. For example, suppose we think that Scripture teaches that God will torment the wicked for all eternity in hell. What does that say about God? Not good things. So we may decide to reject the doctrine, in spite of the apparent Scriptural support, simply because we cannot accept that it is true, given what the results would be in regards to what it would imply regarding God's character.

Another approach would be to say, I don't care what it says about God's character, if it's in Scripture, in must be true, so I'll go with that no matter what (which, of course, disregards the possibility that Scripture may be being misapplied).

It seems to me that if we go about trying to construct a theology that makes God as good as possible, so to speak, that we can't go wrong, provided (and this is a huge condition) that we aren't simply fashioning a "God" from our own imaginings, but are truly allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us in our search for truth.

As Jesus said (paraphrased) if we are willing to do His will, we will know the truth.

But we should understand that what "makes God as good as possible" differs from one person to the next. Some believe that everyone will be saved because God is so good. So that, obviously, is not a foolproof hermeneutic.

Well, to some extent it will be true that what makes God good will vary from person to person, as we perceive and value different things (such as attributes of character) differently.

Regarding the second sentence, that's why I added the caveat, pointing out its importance, that we listen to God revealing Himself to us, as opposed to fashioning an idol of our own devisings, which brings the following quote to mind:



Boy, that hits the mark perfectly, doesn't it?

Bullseye!

This is from wiki, on "penal substitution"



The "these ideas" in the first sentence is referring to Anselm's ideas on the satisfaction theory.

I thought about this a bit more, Arthur, and I couldn't think of any way to make this work (i.e. penal substitution) without an arbitrarily, or externally, imposed penalty.

It also seems to me that penal substitution implies the final judgment must also be an imposed penalty as well.

TE: It also seems to me that penal substitution implies the final judgment must also be an imposed penalty as well.

MM: Sister White makes a connection between the cross and the final judgment. She refers to it as God's "punishment" and "just retribution". These are externally imposed by God. She also warns us against thinking God is too kind and merciful to execute punishment and retribution.

PP 408
There are those who will question God's love and His justice in visiting so severe punishment for words spoken in the heat of passion. But both love and justice require it to be shown that utterances prompted by malice against God are a great sin. The retribution visited upon the first offender would be a warning to others, that God's name is to be held in reverence. But had this man's sin been permitted to pass unpunished, others would have been demoralized; and as the result many lives must eventually have been sacrificed. {PP 408.2}

3BC 1166
Very few realize the sinfulness of sin; they flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the offender. But the cases of Miriam, Aaron, David, and many others show that it is not a safe thing to sin against God in deed, in word, or even in thought. God is a being of infinite love and compassion, but He also declares Himself to be a "consuming fire, even a jealous God" (RH Aug. 14, 1900). {3BC 1166.2}

GC 539
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}

3BC 1166
The death of Christ was to be the convincing, everlasting argument that the law of God is as unchangeable as His throne. The agonies of the Garden of Gethsemane, the insult, the mockery, and abuse heaped upon God's dear Son, the horrors and ignominy of the crucifixion, furnish sufficient and thrilling demonstration that God's justice, when it punishes, does the work thoroughly. The fact that His own Son, the Surety for man, was not spared, is an argument that will stand to all eternity before saint and sinner, before the universe of God, to testify that He will not excuse the transgressor of His law. Every offense against God's law, however minute, is set down in the reckoning, and when the sword of justice is taken in hand, it will do the work for impenitent transgressors that was done to the divine Sufferer. Justice will strike; for God's hatred of sin is intense and overwhelming (MS 58, 1897). {3BC 1166.3}

GC 627
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}

PM 178
When calamity comes, unless the Lord indicates plainly that this calamity is sent as a punishment of those who are departing from the word of His counsel; unless He reveals that it has come as a retribution for the sins of the workers, let every man refrain from criticism. Let us be careful not to reproach anyone.--RH, Aug. 16, 1906. {PM 178.2}

From DA 764 we read:



There are other quotes like this which explain their being an organic connection between sin and death, as opposed to death being something imposed by God as a punishment.

One can make the "imposing" language fit with an organic framework, but it's difficult for me to see how this can work the other way.

If the penalty for sin is something imposed, then our motivation to be reconciled to God is so that He won't kill us, which seems problematic. OTOH, if it is sin which results in death, then we see God acting in a saving role, by healing/saving us from that which would kill us.

TE: OTOH, if it is sin which results in death, then we see God acting in a saving role, by healing/saving us from that which would kill us.

MM: Had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized. It isn't sin that kills sinners; they die because they cannot eat of the tree of the life.

Genesis
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

GC 533
Had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized. But cherubim and a flaming sword kept "the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24), and not one of the family of Adam has been permitted to pass that barrier and partake of the life-giving fruit. Therefore there is not an immortal sinner. {GC 533.3}

Tom, if God simply allows sin to run its course, how do you explain the following insights?

1. "There are those who will question God's love and His justice in visiting so severe punishment for words spoken in the heat of passion." (quoted above) There is nothing passive about this incident.

2. "Very few realize the sinfulness of sin; they flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the offender." (quoted above) There's nothing passive about these incidents.

3. "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." (quoted) There is nothing passive about Jesus' death on the cross.

4. "The glory of Him who is love will destroy them." (quoted above) There is nothing passive about this quote either.

1. is dealing with a different subject.

2. sounds like it also is dealing with a different subject, but to address the words actually quoted:



just this in itself is explained, in principle, here:



You seem to have the idea that unless God Himself does something violent, He is being soft on sin. Yet the GC quote points out that God was never more decisive in regards to giving punishment than in the events that transpired in the destruction of Jerusalem.

3.Regarding Calvary, you are correct that Christ's death was not passive, in terms of what evil men and angels did to Him, but God certainly did nothing violent to Christ.

Actually this quote would probably be about the strongest quote in favor of my position that I can think of. What was God's role in the crucification of Christ? As Peter and Paul point out, Christ was "delivered" by God, which is to say, God allowed that which evil men and angels did to Him to take place.

4.I think the characterization of active/passive may not be the best way of conceptualizing things here. The question really is whether there is an organic relationship between sin and death, or only an artificial or arbitrary or external or imposed (choose a word) relationship.

In other words, does the glory of Him who is love destroys them indicate something organic, or something God does? Here's a parallel quote:



Since the same thing that slays the wicked gives life to the righteous, it's quite clearly not something God arbitrarily does to them (agreeing with DA 764), but a result of their own choice (a point also brought out by DA 764).

TE: OTOH, if it is sin which results in death, then we see God acting in a saving role, by healing/saving us from that which would kill us.

MM: "Sin which results in death." How can sin die? Do you mean, Sin causes sinners to die the instant God stops protecting them? If so, then I beg to differ. It isn't sin that kills sinners; they die because they cannot eat of the tree of the life.

Had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized.

Genesis
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

GC 533
Had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized. But cherubim and a flaming sword kept "the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24), and not one of the family of Adam has been permitted to pass that barrier and partake of the life-giving fruit. Therefore there is not an immortal sinner. {GC 533.3}

TE: In other words, does the glory of Him who is love destroys them indicate something organic, or something God does?

MM: I'm having a hard time understanding what you believe. Who or what punishes sinners in proportion to their sinfulness and then eventually kills them? Is it sin? Or, is it the glory of God?

Also, is it true that God is too kind and merciful to punish and destroy sinners? "Very few realize the sinfulness of sin; they flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the offender."

According to your view, God punishes and destroys sinners by withdrawing His protection and giving evil angles permission to hurt and kill them. Therefore, you believe God is not too kind and merciful to punish and destroy sinners, right?

Let me try quoting DA 764:



I would be hard pressed to put what I believe any more clearly that this. In fact, these paragraphs are the chief reason I believe what I believe.

We see here that she points out that the wicked did, not because because of an arbitrary use of power on God's part, but because of their own choice. They reap that which they have sown, which is death. ""All they that hate Me love (choose) death."

As she puts it:






You need to be clearer about what you're talking about. Are you talking about the final judgment? Or acts such as the destruction of Jerusalem? Or both?

The principles are similar in different situations, but the actual working out of things is different. I would say in all situations there is an element of God's withdrawal, in some shape or form. Also, this withdrawal of God is voiced in Scripture as His "wrath." There are many examples of this, the clearest one perhaps being Romans 1 where God's wrath against unrighteousness is defined by His giving over those who have rebelled against Him to their desires (stated no less then three different times in the span of but a few verses).

In the first chapter of The Great Controversy we see this theme clearly spelled out. Also there is the warning (unfortunately, often not heeded by many) that the great deceiver hides his work by making it appear that God is responsible for his deeds.

Now you have the idea of a wrathful God who kills in many different ways, not understanding "wrath" as His giving up the sinner to His choice, but as something else. One of the ways, as you see it, is as described in the destruction of Jerusalem chapter in the Great Controversy. But limiting this description to this one event misses the point that EGW is enunciating a principle. The things that she wrote were not for that one event only, but were principles to be applied to other situations.

Indeed, this is how the works of inspiration should be read. We should look for the principles involved, so that we can apply them to other situations.

If we look at the life of Christ, we see that it is exactly in harmony with the principles laid out in "The Great Controversy" by Ellen White, with no exceptions. Perhaps the best example of this was when he was urged to kill by his disciples by having fire be sent from heaven. Christ reacted by pointing out that they did not know what spirit they were of, which is to say they were seconding the ideas of the evil one. Then, significantly, it says that He departed and went to another village.

*That's* the way that Christ dispenses vengeance and judgment. This is the working of God's wrath! It *is* something covered in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, just as Ellen White said.

Tom, I am unable to address your last post until you address this one. Thank you.

On second thought, I would like to comment on the following:

TE: I would say in all situations there is an element of God's withdrawal, in some shape or form. Also, this withdrawal of God is voiced in Scripture as His "wrath."

MM: On the one hand, God's presence causes sinners to die. And on the other hand, His absence causes sinners to die. In either case, the thing that causes sinners to die is God. Of course, it is God who cause saints to live. It is better to be a saint, than a sinner, in the presence or absence of God.

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)

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)

To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. (DA 107)

Sin can't die. It's not alive. That doesn't make sense. Sin causes those who choose it as their "raison d'etre" to perish.

As EGW puts it:

The underlined is an untruth, and a very dangerous one at that.



It is Satan, not God, who is the author of sin and all its results, including death.

TE: Sin causes those who choose it as their "raison d'etre" to perish.

MM: Sin does not cause sinners to die. This theory is in direct contradiction to the principles outlined in the following passages:

Genesis
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

GC 533
Had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized. But cherubim and a flaming sword kept "the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24), and not one of the family of Adam has been permitted to pass that barrier and partake of the life-giving fruit. Therefore there is not an immortal sinner. {GC 533.3}

"Therefore [for the reason stated above] there is not an immortal sinner." What is the reason? Why do sinners die? Because they do not have free access to the life-giving fruit; not for the reason you have been advocating.

EGW: Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin.

MM: Satan wants us to believe disease and death are "arbitrarily" inflicted by God. The truth is - it is never arbitrary. God doesn't do anything without good reason and just cause. When He visits punishment upon sinners it is in harmony with law and justice. There are times, however, when things happen that are nothing more than God allowing sinners to reap what they have sown.

---

TE: It is Satan, not God, who is the author of sin and all its results, including death.

MM: On the one hand, you say sin causes sinners to die. On the other hand, you say Satan causes sinners to die. But Inspiration says, It is God's glory, His presence that causes sinners to die. Who do we believe?

DA 764
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)

DA 764
To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. (DA 107)

No, that's not her point. Your conclusion does not follow her argument. She says that *Satan* is the author of sin and all its results. That God does not arbitrarily inflict us with sin means that He does does nothing external or imposed to cause it to happen. This is very clear from the context.

If her meaning were what you were suggesting, she would have said something along the lines of what you said; that God did it, but He had good reasons to do so. But that's not what she said.

By the way, you're misunderstanding the word "arbitrary," which is very common. It's primary meaning means by way of individual discretion. Ellen White is using the word according to its proper definition, to mean God is not inflicting others with disease by means of an act of individual discretion.



Well, Ellen White says that Satan is the author of sin and all its results, so why not go with that?

Wasn't this the devil's lie?



This is pretty clear, isn't it? Death is "the inevitable result of sin," which is the same thing as saying that "sin results in death," isn't it?



Not unless the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself.

You have a way of thinking which makes these things seem contradictory to yourself, so you wind up rejecting one of the statements in favor of the other. But the statements are not contradictory.

There is absolutely no reason to think that death is no the inevitable result of sin simply because God did not permit Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of life.



It's not I. I have been quoting from The Desire of Ages. These are direct quotes:





Here are some more:

Yes, of course, there are times when there is a cause and consequence relationship between sinning and suffering and dying BEFORE sinners punish and perish in the lake of fire. I have stated this point numerous times.

The reason we suffer and die long lingering deaths, instead of God killing us immediately as law and justice require of Him, is due the fact Jesus bought us probation with His blood. Had Jesus not paid our sin debt of death, the human race would have ended with the instant execution of Adam and Eve.

The loyal beings, however, would have misunderstood it and would have, for a time, served God out of fear until full scale rebellion broke out. God would have been forced to eliminate all FMAs throughout His vast universe. To prevent this from happening is just one of the many reasons God choose to grant us probation.

In the end, none of the loyal or redeemed saints will question God's "strange act", when He resurrects and punishes and destroys sinners in the lake of fire. The glory of God's presence and fire rained down from heaven will cause sinners to suffer in proportion to their sinfulness and to eventually die the eternal death.

There is nothing arbitrary about it. God is justified in destroying sin and sinners. Holy angels and redeemed saints will unite in praising God for His justice and mercy, for putting an end to sin. In one sense it is mercy killing; putting the hopeless out of their misery. In another sense it appeases the wrath of an offended God, it satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice.

GC 543
In mercy to the world, God blotted out its wicked inhabitants in Noah's time. In mercy He destroyed the corrupt dwellers in Sodom. Through the deceptive power of Satan the workers of iniquity obtain sympathy and admiration, and are thus constantly leading others to rebellion. It was so in Cain's and in Noah's day, and in the time of Abraham and Lot; it is so in our time. It is in mercy to the universe that God will finally destroy the rejecters of His grace. (GC 543)

GC 544
They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, "according to their works," but finally ending in the second death. Since it is impossible for God, consistently with His justice and mercy, to save the sinner in his sins, He deprives him of the existence which his transgressions have forfeited and of which he has proved himself unworthy. Says an inspired writer: "Yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be." And another declares: "They shall be as though they had not been." Psalm 37:10; Obadiah 16. Covered with infamy, they sink into hopeless, eternal oblivion. {GC 544.2}

GC 672-674
Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:10. The earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire. It is the time of the judgment and perdition of ungodly men--"the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion." Isaiah 34:8. {GC 672.2}

The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Proverbs 11:31. They "shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts." Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch--Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. {GC 673.1}

Satan's work of ruin is forever ended. For six thousand years he has wrought his will, filling the earth with woe and causing grief throughout the universe. The whole creation has groaned and travailed together in pain. Now God's creatures are forever delivered from his presence and temptations. "The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they [the righteous] break forth into singing." Isaiah 14:7. And a shout of praise and triumph ascends from the whole loyal universe. "The voice of a great multitude," "as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings," is heard, saying: "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." Revelation 19:6. {GC 673.2}

While the earth was wrapped in the fire of destruction, the righteous abode safely in the Holy City. Upon those that had part in the first resurrection, the second death has no power. While God is to the wicked a consuming fire, He is to His people both a sun and a shield. Revelation 20:6; Psalm 84:11. {GC 673.3}

"I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." Revelation 21:1. The fire that consumes the wicked purifies the earth. Every trace of the curse is swept away. No eternally burning hell will keep before the ransomed the fearful consequences of sin. {GC 674.1}

The quotes above are not limited to discussing what happens before sinners punish and perish in the lake of fire. For example, the quotes from DA 471, DA 764, 6SDABC 1085, and RH Aug 4/1910 all deal with the second death; some are dealing *exclusively* with the second death.



Justice is not greater than God!!! It makes no sense to say that justice is demanding something of God, in a literal sense. THIS IS A METAPHOR.

It is God alone who determines what He will do. He is Sovereign.

The law does not demand that God kill us immediately. This is a terrible way of looking at things. Just awful. It makes God responsible for our death instead of sin.



This is mixing things up. You're obviously thinking of DA 764 here. The issue you're referring to had to do with why Satan was not left to reap the full consequences of his sin. She does not say that the angels would have had doubts about Satan's death because God killed Him, but that had God *left* Satan to reap the full consequences of his sin, they would not have understood.

"Left" she said. "Left" is the past tense of "leave," which means "to cause or allow to be or remain in a specified condition." God took actions so as not to leave Satan in the condition that sin put him in. Satan should have died immediately, in consequence of his sin. He didn't die because God took actions to prevent this from happening. He was not LEFT to reap the full consequences of his sin.

This was an issue which was decided *before* our creation, and hence, before our probation.



Could you explain the fire part for me please? The wicked will be raised in bodies such as we have, which is to say non-resurrection bodies. Our bodies cannot stand to be burned by fire. We die when this happens. So how is it that some wicked suffer for many days?



Did you have something like this in mind?



Again, assuming you have DA 764 in mind, you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word "arbitrary." It means, in that context, "imposed" or "external" or "not a natural consequence." It doesn't mean "capricious" or "without cause."

The judgment involves much more than what you're discussing. You have brought up the most important points, without which we cannot hope to understand what's going on.

Came across something that touches on the "dichotomy" between the OT and NT.

The problem is reinterpreting the New to fit the Old, rather than interpreting the Old in the light of Christ. As Jesus said:



According to Ellen White:



This is, of course, echoed in the New Testament (or rather, EGW echoes the New Testament).

I'm still stumped by the idea that God commands us to do things that He would not do Himself. When that guy was caught picking up sticks, God commanded that he be stoned.

In the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, Jesus taught a parable which had the people continuing to live after death (i.e., wrong idea of an immortal soul). Jesus taught them this parable, using their erroneous idea of an immortal soul, to teach them truth regarding another subject.

We note:

a)Jesus, of course, knew the truth about the state of dead.
b)Jesus knew His hearers did not know this truth.
c)Jesus taught a parable which had error in it, in regards to the state of the dead.



This is an example of God's taking account of our particular circumstances and counseling us accordingly.

Another example of this principle would be the Israelite's having a king. God never intended that they should have a king. Picking a king for them is not something God would ordinarily have done Himself. However, because of their stubbornness, God acceded to their desires.

Another example is the paper of divorce God allowed to be given. God's true view of divorce was laid out by Jesus Christ (as well as Malachi: "I hate divorce"). Because of the hardness of their hearts, God made an accommodation for them.

Another example is the military battles the Israelites fought. God never intended that they should fight their own battles, any more than that they should have a king. His first choice was to be their king, and fight their battles for them. But if His people will not keep step with Him, then He must humble Himself and keep step with them, which is what He did in so many cases.

There are many examples of this principle.

God's dealings with the Israelites were not an ideal. God had to make many accommodations because of their ignorance and stubbornness. The ideal is seen in Christ.

By studying Christ's life and teachings, we can see what God is really like, what His principles are, what His desires are. Because so many accommodations had to be made in the case of the Israelites, many had false ideas about what God was really like. Satan was being remarkably successful in his efforts to misrepresent God's character. Even angels (as the DA chapter "It Is Finished" points out) were confused to a degree by Satan's sophistries, and weren't clear on things until Jesus Christ's incarnation.

It is one thing to say, "I wish you guys would be like Me, but since you're so messed up, I'll let you do that." But quite another to say, "I wish you guys would be like Me, but if you want to obey Me, you will have to do that which you and I abhor."

I see what you're saying for Lazarus, but I don't see how that relates to capital punishment in the OT.

In the parable, Jesus allowed a misconception to continue so that He could teach a more important lesson.

In your view, capital punishment in the OT was not God's will. But not only did He allow it to continue, He instituted it! That's a different thing altogether. That would be like Jesus first teaching the people about eternal torment, THEN allowing the misconception to continue.

I can handle allowing the misconception to continue. I'm having difficulty with creating the misconception in the first place. And that's what we're looking at in the OT death sentence.

If the sinner's death was needed to teach a lesson, God could have done it Himself. He could open the ground and crush the sinners. He could turn them into salt. He could have them eaten by worms. He could send an angel to smite them. He could cause them to burst into flames. He can do any or all of these things. Instead, He made His people pick up stones and violently execute the sinner themselves.

What "bigger" lesson would God have been teaching, big enough that He would command His people to do something He is not willing to do Himself?

And this concept, that God would expect His creatures to do something against His own nature, something that He is not willing to do Himself, goes against the record of Christ's life in the NT. Since "all that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son," I don't see how this can be true, since Christ revealed no such attribute.

This isn't correctly characterizing the situation.

Consider the case of divorce. God's ideal, in regards to divorce, is clearly articulated by Jesus Christ. What Jesus said was always God's will. But God accommodated the Israelites, because of their ignorance and stubbornness. God's allowing the Israelite's to divorce should not have been understood as His teaching that this was OK, even though He "instituted" it.

But He didn't really institute divorce any more than He instituted capital punishment, did He? Both divorce and capital punishment existed before God said anything to the Israelite's about it. So God's words should be best understood as His giving the best loving counsel possible to a stubborn, ignorant people in their given circumstances. But not as God's ideal will.

Do you really think God wants people to be stoned for not keeping the Sabbath? Should we do that now? Is the only reason why not because we are not living in a theocracy?

When the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus, that was the perfect situation to demonstrate that God delights in having people stoned for moral vices. (I'm using "delights" here as a synonym for "God's will"). But what did Jesus do? He said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." He expressed God's ideal. He revealed God's character.

Another example of this principle is seen when the disciples urged Jesus to show the Samaritans a lesson by having fire come down from heaven to destroy them. Jesus responded, "You know not of what spirit you are."

Jesus revealed God's idea of correct behavior towards those who treat you badly, and despise you. It's to pray for them, to sacrifice for them, to die for them, to love them. He expressed God's ideal. He revealed God's character.

Jesus' entire life was all about revealing God's character. This is the point which caused man to fell, and this is the point that still causes him trouble. The "whole purpose" of Christ's mission (EGW) was to reveal God's character. The final message, which will prepare for the coming of Christ, is a revelation of God's character.

So completely did Jesus reveal God's character, we are told that "all" that we can know about God was revealed by Jesus' life and teaching. Given the following facts:

a)Man was deceived into sin by a misrepresentation of God's character.
b)That man might be reconciled to God (and the universe), Jesus came to reveal God's character.
c)The final message that will be given before Christ's second coming to humanity is the message of God's character.
d)So completely did Jesus reveal God's character, we are told that "all" that we can know about God was revealed by Jesus' life and teachings.

it seems to me that our approach should be to study and understand the life and teachings of Christ. We need that as our base. With a solid base, we can discuss other issues, such as incidents in the Old Testament, so that we can interpret God's actions correctly, in a way that is in harmony with what Jesus Christ taught and how He lived.

The problem is that in your example of divorce, there is no command from God that we must do it. Clearly, He is accommodating our imperfection.

In the case of capital punishment in the OT, the Amalekites for example, killing the people was not optional. He wasn't accommodating the Israelites' desire to kill. In fact, when Saul didn't kill them all, God was displeased. Will God be displeased if in a case of adultery, the offended party did not go through with the divorce?

That is the difference, which is why I think you are misapplying the principle.

Now, on to other capital issues. Have the wages of sin always been death?

Obviously, the answer is Yes in the NT, since that came from the NT. Also obviously, lots of people were killed in the OT for sinning.

But do we believe the adulterous woman somehow got around the just wages of her sin? I don't think so. She died alright.

How about the Gibeonites? They were afraid to get killed. But we are told that they would have been spared since they were willing to follow God. Did they get around the death penalty? No. They also died.

The antedeluvians? They died, too. And God caused all that death.

Of course, the death that God prefers is death to self, sin, and Satan. But for those who do not want that kind of death, the only alternative is permanent physical death. But in every case, the wages of sin is death.

I don't think so. I think the same principle is involved. God was counseling an ignorant and backward people the best way possible, given the circumstances.

A question that needs to be asked in these types of situations is, did God really want the Amalekites dead? Is this something that made God happy, seeing them dead? Or was their death a victim of circumstances?

The way to approach these things, it seems to me, is to study the life and teachings of Christ. That is the way, the only way, that we will come to an understanding as to God's character. Second to this, I would say, would be to consider how God has treated us individually in our own lives. I believe we will see, in every case without exception, that God has treated us exactly as we see how Jesus Christ treated others (as opposed, for example, as to how we perceive God to have acted in certain places in the Old Testament).

The wages of sin is death (the second death) because that is the nature of sin. Other versions put the idea perhaps a bit more clearly: "Sin pays its wages; death." (James expressed the same thought, that sin, when it is through, brings forth death, and of course, many other Scriptures bring out the same idea).



I'm not following this.



I think you're getting things confused here. The death that is the wages of sin is the second death, and she did not die that death, but, on the contrary, was saved from that death by being saved from sin.



There's no issue involved in getting away with anything. The issues involved have to do with understanding God's character and being saved from sin. Again, the death that is the wages of sin is the second death.



How did they die? They died by waters that were under the earth, which exploded into the atmosphere. This is clear from statements from Scripture, the Spirit of Prophecy, and also investigations by creationist scientists have led to this conclusion.

Now since the waters were under great pressure, what can we conclude? Either God knew when they would erupt, and would have prevented that from happening had man not been so wicked, or the waters would have erupted sooner, but God kept that from happening as long as there was still an opportunity for man to repent. These are just two possibilities, among others, which are in perfect harmony with God's character as revealed in Jesus Christ, as well as being in harmony with His own law.

As long as they had not irrevocably grieved His Spirit, there were under God's protection. But when the boundaries of God's forebearance was past, which is simply to say that they had so hardened their hearts that they could, or would, no longer respond to God's overtures, He gave them over to the results of their choice. It's the same principle as discussed in the first chapter of "The Great Controversy," and the same principle explained and exemplified in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.



Not because God kills them! The wages of sin is death because sin is deadly.

If we have the idea that God will kill us if we don't do what He says, it's inevitable that we will "serve" God out of fear. At the very least, our ability to have as full a relationship with Him as we could is hampered. There is no fear in love, and love is awakened by love.

Backing up a moment, the Spirit of Prophecy tells us that the cross is the key to understanding every truth in Scripture, and this is certainly in harmony with the testimony of Scripture (in particular, Paul comes to mind). I think in terms of understanding different principles we have discussed, the easiest principle to apprehend is the atonement. Probably hand in hand with that comes the judgment.

A big question that comes up with all of these issues is whether the penalty for disobedience is an imposed penalty by God, or the natural consequence of choosing another way than the way of agape. If one holds to the idea that the penalty for sin is imposed, I don't see how it would be possible to understand the things we have been discussing.

At any rate, I think understanding the atonement and final judgment would be a better place to start a discussion of these questions. For example, I don't know anyone personally who shares similar thoughts to what I have been sharing regarding God and violently killing people who does has the concept of penal substitution in regards to the atonement nor the idea that God, in the final judgment, burns people with fire to have them pay for their sins, before killing them. On the other hand, I know quite a few people who share similar idea in regards to the atonement and the final judgment that I have, but do not see the question of God's using violence the same way I do.