Is Penal Substitution Biblical?

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. {1BC 1082.6}

The Son of God, undertaking to become the Redeemer of the race, placed Adam in a new relation to his Creator. He was still fallen; but a door of hope was opened to him. The wrath of God still hung over Adam, but the execution of the sentence of death was delayed, and the indignation of God was restrained, because Christ had entered upon the work of becoming man's Redeemer. Christ was to take the wrath of God, which in justice should fall upon man. He became a refuge for man, and, although man was indeed a criminal, deserving the wrath of God, yet he could, by faith in Christ, run into the refuge provided and be safe. In the midst of death there was life if man chose to accept it. The holy and infinite God, who dwelleth in light unapproachable, could no longer talk with man. No communication could now exist directly between man and his Maker. {Con 19.4}

God forbears, for a time, the full execution of the sentence of death pronounced upon man. Satan flattered himself that he had forever broken the link between heaven and earth. But in this he was greatly mistaken and disappointed. The Father had given the world into the hands of His Son for Him to redeem from the curse and the disgrace of Adam's failure and fall. Through Christ alone can man now find access to God. And through Christ alone will the Lord hold communication with man. {Con 20.1}

Christ volunteered to maintain and vindicate the holiness of the divine law. He was not to do away the smallest part of its claims in the work of redemption for man, but, in order to save man and maintain the sacred claims and justice of His Father's law, He gave Himself a sacrifice for the guilt of man. Christ's life did not, in a single instance, detract from the claims of His Father's law, but, through firm obedience to all its precepts and by dying for the sins of those who had transgressed it, He established its immutability. {Con 20.2}

After the transgression of Adam, Satan saw that the ruin was complete. The human race was brought into a deplorable condition. Man was cut off from intercourse with God. It was Satan's design that the state of man should be the same as that of the fallen angels, in rebellion against God, uncheered by a gleam of hope. He reasoned that if God pardoned sinful man whom He had created, He would also pardon him and his angels and receive them into His favor. But he was disappointed. {Con 20.3}

The divine Son of God saw that no arm but His own could save fallen man, and He determined to help man. He left the fallen angels to perish in their rebellion, but stretched forth His hand to rescue perishing man. The angels who were rebellious were dealt with according to the light and experience they had abundantly enjoyed in heaven. Satan, the chief of the fallen angels, once had an exalted position in heaven. He was next in honor to Christ. The knowledge which he, as well as the angels who fell with him, had of the character of God, of His goodness, His mercy, wisdom, and excellent glory, made their guilt unpardonable. {Con 21.1}

There was no possible hope for the redemption of those who had witnessed and enjoyed the inexpressible glory of heaven, and had seen the terrible majesty of God, and, in presence of all this glory, had rebelled against Him. There were no new and wonderful exhibitions of God's exalted power that could impress them so deeply as those they had already experienced. If they could rebel in the very presence of glory inexpressible, they could not be placed in a more favorable condition to be proved. There was no reserve force of power, nor were there any greater heights and depths of infinite glory to overpower their jealous doubts and rebellious murmuring. Their guilt and their punishment must be in proportion to their exalted privileges in the heavenly courts. {Con 21.2}

Fallen man, because of his guilt, could no longer come directly before God with his supplications; for his transgression of the divine law had placed an impassable barrier between the holy God and the transgressor. But a plan was devised that the sentence of death should rest upon a Substitute. 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, "Thou shalt surely die." And the flowing of the blood from the victim would also signify an atonement. There was no virtue in the blood of animals; but the shedding of the blood of beasts was to point forward to a Redeemer who would one day come to the world and die for the sins of men. And thus Christ would fully vindicate His Father's law. {Con 21.3}

1. The wrath of God still hung over Adam, but the execution of the sentence of death was delayed, and the indignation of God was restrained, because Christ had entered upon the work of becoming man's Redeemer. Christ was to take the wrath of God, which in justice should fall upon man. He became a refuge for man, and, although man was indeed a criminal, deserving the wrath of God, yet he could, by faith in Christ, run into the refuge provided and be safe.

2. God forbears, for a time, the full execution of the sentence of death pronounced upon man.

3. Christ's life did not, in a single instance, detract from the claims of His Father's law, but, through firm obedience to all its precepts and by dying for the sins of those who had transgressed it, He established its immutability.

4. [Jesus] left the fallen angels to perish in their rebellion, but stretched forth His hand to rescue perishing man.

5. There was no possible hope for the redemption of those [angels] who had witnessed and enjoyed the inexpressible glory of heaven, and had seen the terrible majesty of God, and, in presence of all this glory, had rebelled against Him.

6. But a plan was devised that the sentence of death should rest upon a Substitute.

7. In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin.

8. 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, "Thou shalt surely die." And the flowing of the blood from the victim would also signify an atonement.

9. 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.

10. 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.

Why do you ask the question, "Is Penal Substitution Biblical?" and then not quote a single Scripture?

Is there anything unbiblical about the inspired insights I posted?

It's pretty funny to have a topic called, "Is Penal Substitution Biblical," write 3 posts, and have not one single Bible text.

Again, is there anything unbiblical about the inspired insights I posted?

The life of men and women is precious in the sight of God; for Christ has purchased that life by being executed in their stead. Thus He made it possible for us to attain to immortality. {LHU 345.5}

The sinner receives the forgiveness of his sins, because these sins are borne by his Substitute and Surety. The Lord speaks to His heavenly Father, saying: "This is My child, I reprieve him from the condemnation of death, giving him My life insurance policy--eternal life--because I have taken his place and have suffered for his sins. He is even My beloved son." {FW 103.2}

It is the Father's prerogative to forgive our transgressions and sins, because Christ has taken upon Himself our guilt and reprieved us, imputing to us His own righteousness. His sacrifice satisfies fully the demands of justice. {FW 103.3}

When all hope was excluded from Adam and Eve in consequence of transgression and sin, when justice demanded the death of the sinner, Christ gave Himself to be a sacrifice for the sin of the world. The world was under condemnation. Christ became substitute and surety for man. {FE 283.1}

Precious is the price paid for our redemption--the blood of the only begotten Son of God. Christ was tried by the sharp proving of affliction. His human nature was tried to the uttermost. He bore the death penalty of man's transgression. He became the sinner's substitute and surety. {TDG 202.4}

The transgression of God's law made the death of Christ essential to save man and yet maintain the dignity and honor of the law. Christ took upon Himself the condemnation of sin. He opened His bosom to the woes of man. He who knew no sin became sin for us. {FLB 104.4}

The sin of the whole world was laid upon Jesus, and divinity gave its highest value to the suffering of humanity in Jesus, that the whole world might be pardoned through faith in the Substitute. The most guilty need have no fear that God will not pardon, for because of the efficacy of the divine sacrifice the penalty of the law will be remitted. Through Christ the sinner may return to allegiance to God. {FLB 104.9}

The power that inflicted retributive justice upon man's substitute and surety, was the power that sustained and upheld the suffering One under the tremendous weight of wrath that would have fallen upon a sinful world. Christ was suffering the death that was pronounced upon the transgressors of God's law. {5BC 1103.2}

Now if the law of God could have been changed and altered to meet man in his fallen condition, then Adam would have been pardoned and retained his home in Eden; but the penalty of transgression was death, and Christ became man's substitute and surety. {TMK 289.3}

Jesus, by the law of sympathetic love, bore our sins, took our punishment, and drank the cup of the wrath of God apportioned to the transgressor. {TMK 289.4}

Now you've posted 6 times, with still nothing from Scripture.

How about 1 Corinthians 15:3 and 1 Peter 2:24? Then there's the "propitiation" of 1Jo 2:2, 1Jo 4:10, and Rom 3:25 (plus Hbr 9:5 which translates it as "mercyseat").

I went a couple of rounds with a Maxwellian recently, and the forensic aspects of our theology have been on my mind lately. It's clear that the forensic view is not the only correct one, but is it incorrect to view some aspects of salvation that way?

If Jesus was incarnated, and everyone repented and followed Him, and He went back to Heaven before Gethsemane, would that have been sufficient to save man?

Tom, by avoiding my question - Are you saying you think Sister White's insights are unbiblical? Do you agree she believed in penal substitution?

EW 38
I saw four angels who had a work to do on the earth, and were on their way to accomplish it. Jesus was clothed with priestly garments. He gazed in pity on the remnant, then raised His hands, and with a voice of deep pity cried, "My blood, Father, My blood, My blood, My blood!" Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from God, who sat upon the great white throne, and was shed all about Jesus. Then I saw an angel with a commission from Jesus, swiftly flying to the four angels who had a work to do on the earth, and waving something up and down in his hand, and crying with a loud voice, "Hold! Hold! Hold! Hold! until the servants of God are sealed in their foreheads." {EW 38.1}

Hebrews
9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].

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;

Isaiah
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.
53:12 Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

NOTE: 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)

NOTE: 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)

NOTE: 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}

NOTE: 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}

Ok, good, I see some Scripture texts. Let's take a look.

By way of introduction, let me preface my remarks in saying that this issue to me is similar to someone trying to prove from Scripture that Sabbath was changed to Sunday. How does one respond to such a claim? One asks for proof. There are some half-dozen or dozen texts in the New Testament which talk about the first day of the week, and one goes through them one by one, seeing that not one of them says that Sabbath was changed to Sunday.

Similarly there are texts which are used to try to demonstrate penal substitution that can be cited, and the same tack can be taken of seeing where they teach that God required blood in order to have the legal right to pardon. There are no texts which teach this, which can be seen by simply examining the texts.

Also by way of introduction, it should be pointed out that at the time that the New Testament was written (and before, of course), the idea that God required a sacrifice in order to be legally able to pardon didn't exist. The idea of sacrifice was commonly understood, which was known to mean what Paul set out in Romans 12:



The idea was that by the animal sacrifice given, the one offering the sacrifice was dedicating himself to the service of the one being sacrificed to. Everyone understood this. The beauty of this symbolism, in the eye of faith, is that in truth it was God who offered Himself, in the person of His Son, for us. In response to that wonderful gift, that wonderful sacrifice, it is our privilege to be able to give ourselves for Him.

Ok, on to the texts:



This says the the shedding of blood was necessary. It doesn't say why.



This goes along with the well-known idea of sacrifice I presented earlier. We are set apart for service (i.e. sanctified) by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Paul sets out the idea here:





If this verse said that Jesus Christ propitiated God, then this would be along the lines of the theory of penal substitution, but it doesn't say this. It says that God set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. If God were propitiated by Christ's blood, faith would not be necessary.

Waggoner, of whom Ellen White said, "E.J. Waggoner can teach righteousness by faith more clearly than I can," comments on this text here:



As Waggoner correctly points out, we are the ones needing the sacrifice, not God.

This text, like the previous ones in Hebrews, say nothing about God's needing blood in order to have the legal right to forgive us. Propitiation has nothing to do with obtain a legal right.

Regarding the text from Isaiah, this is a most beautiful text, of which much could be said, but I'll comment just briefly.



Actually, rather than comment myself, I'll quote from the 1897 General Conference Bulletin, a portion of a beautiful sermon:



This is one of the most moving things I've ever read, especially the second paragraph.

In summarizing, there's absolutely nothing in any of the verses cited which says anything at all about God's required blood to be shed in order to have the legal right to forgive. This idea obscures the true idea of sacrifice.

Tom, do you believe Sister White believed in penal substitution? I'm still waiting for you to answer this question. I need to know before I can address anything you might say about the topic.

If God needed blood in order to obtain the legal right to offer pardon, then God could not have offered Lucifer pardon. Yet Ellen White says that God offered Lucifer pardon "again and again." Therefore the reason for Christ's death could not have for this reason, because if pardon requires blood, from God's end, that would have just as necessary to pardon Lucifer as to pardon man. Therefore the meaning of the blood, according to Ellen White's writings, is something else.

I think her thinking on the subject is similar to the Fifield statements I quoted. Fifield's book "God is Love" was one of her bedside books.

You opened a thread asking the question if penal substitution is Biblical, and it wasn't until something like a dozen posts into the thread that any Biblical texts appeared. None of these texts state that God needed blood in order to be able to legally provide.

In addition to their being no Biblical evidence to support this theory, the historical evidence is such that such an idea simply did not exist at the time of Paul, or before. It wasn't until many centuries later that the penal substitution idea was invented.

I've also been asking for a couple of weeks now, I think, for any evidence whatsoever from the life and teachings of Jesus Christ that He believed that the Father needed the Son to die in order for Him to have the legal right to forgive us. So far all you have cited are some quotes where He said that His time had not yet come, which is hardly evidence for the idea that Christ had to die in order for God to have the legal right to pardon us.

Tom, once again we disagree. I do not believe God can pardon willful sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus. Again, Sister White is consistent: No death, no pardon!

Step by step [Paul] led his hearers on, showing the importance of honoring the law of God. He gave due honor to the ceremonial law, showing that it was Christ who instituted the Jewish economy and the sacrificial service. Then he brought them down to the first advent of the Redeemer, and showed that in the life and death of Christ every specification of the sacrificial service had been fulfilled. {GW 118.1}

To many it has been a mystery why so many sacrificial offerings were required in the old dispensation, why so many bleeding victims were led to the altar. But the great truth that was kept before men, and imprinted upon mind and heart, was this, "Without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). In every bleeding sacrifice was typified "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). {AG 155.2}

The cleansing, both in the typical and in the real service, must be accomplished with blood: in the former, with the blood of animals; in the latter, with the blood of Christ. Paul states, as the reason why this cleansing must be performed with blood, that without shedding of blood is no remission. Remission, or putting away of sin, is the work to be accomplished. {GC 417.3}

The Jews saw in the sacrificial offerings the symbol of Christ whose blood was shed for the salvation of the world. All these offerings were to typify Christ and to rivet the great truth in their hearts that the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanseth from all sin, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Some wonder why God desired so many sacrifices and appointed the offering of so many bleeding victims in the Jewish economy. {1SM 106.4}

Every dying victim was a type of Christ, which lesson was impressed on mind and heart in the most solemn, sacred ceremony, and explained definitely by the priests. Sacrifices were explicitly planned by God Himself to teach this great and momentous truth, that through the blood of Christ alone there is forgiveness of sins. {1SM 107.1}

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

MM, if you're going to have a thread on "Is Penal Substitution Biblical?" it's not too much to ask that you present and address Scriptural arguments, is it?

Regarding the Spirit of Prophecy, it is clear that God was willing to pardon Lucifer, without Christ's having died. The issue could not have been one of God's needing to have something done in order for Him to have the legal right to pardon, because that would have had to have been done in order for God to pardon Lucifer.

Are we the ones being propitiated? Are we the ones being sacrificed to?

MM: Would you prefer my biblical commentary over Sister White's? Quoting her is similar to her participating on this thread.

Your main argument against penal substitution is based on your private interpretation of Sister White's comments concerning Lucifer's rebellion in heaven. Who are you to complain about me quoting the SOP?

You think she implied God was willing to pardon Lucifer's willful sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus, therefore, death is not required to give God the legal right to pardon sinners. This conclusion is unbiblical [i.e., uninspired]

If you had a thread called, "Is Penal Substitution in accordance with the Spirit of Prophecy" then would you quote Scripture, with no, or virtually no, Spirit of Prophecy references?



This is the main argument I've used in discussions with you, for two reasons. One is that you rely so heavily on the Spirit of Prophecy. Two is that the argument is very powerful and easy to follow.

However, I don't only discuss this topic with you. In other discussions, I don't rely on this argument at all, but use arguments similar to the ones I've been presenting here. I'd be very pleased if you would address the arguments I've been presenting.



The conclusion is Biblical (i.e. inspired) because it is in harmony with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, which I've been able to give plenty of examples showing, and could give more. You haven't been able to substantiate your view with anything from the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, however, or from anywhere in Scripture, for that matter. That is, specifically, where is the idea that God needed death in order to obtain the legal right to pardon found in Scripture? So far, all you've produced are texts saying that death was necessary, which I fully agree with. But why was it necessary? The answers I see in Scripture all point to its being for our benefit, not for some need that God had.

Yes, to the first question; this seems to be what Waggoner is implying. To the second, we are the ones for whom the sacrifice was provided.

Arnold, I'm sorry, but I completely missed your post somehow, which mentioned some Scriptures. I'll respond to it as soon as I can.

The sacrifice was FOR us, no question. But who was the sacrifice TO?

It wasn't "to". It was "for."

God so loved the world, He *gave* His only Son. This is the sacrifice.

Christ "gave Himself" for our sins. He "gave Himself" for us.

From EGW:



From His own love comes the Gift which reconciles us to Himself. This is the sacrifice.

Nice quote, but it can still be interpreted in a way that supports penal substitution. I'll look at it some more.

Was the sacrifice TO anyone?

Arnold, I responded,



If you get a chance to consider the Fifield quotes, please do so. He has had a large impact on thinking. I find his explanations to be eloquent, beautiful and convincing.

Let's start with 1 Pet. 2:24, 25:



I'll also quote 1 Pet. 3:18a, which is along the same idea:



These verses give as the reason for Christ's death that we might be brought to God, returned to Him. So there's no forensic idea here that I see. In fact, 1 Pet. 3:18 is probably my favorite verse for discussing this, as the phrase "bring us to God" is very clear and to the point as a reason for Christ's death.

Regarding Rom. 3:25, this is from the Greek "hilasterion" which means "mercy seat." There's no reason to suppose that the mercy seat has anything to do with God's obtaining the legal right to pardon.

That Christ is an atoning sacrifice for our sins, I fully agree with. To atone is to bring "at one," to reconcile. We could not have been reconciled without His death. As EGW puts it, without Christ's death, sin would have been perpetuated.

Regarding Hebrews 9:5, I already commented on the fact that there's no reason to suppose that the mercy seat has anything to do with God's needing a legal right to pardon us. I'm not aware that there's any Jewish precedent for interpreting "mercy seat" in this way. In fact, I'm not aware of "mercy seat" being interpreted in a penal substitution way as existing before just a couple of centuries ago. I think it's a very recent idea.



You'd have to clarify what you mean here. "Forensic" just means "legal," and Christ's sacrifice was certainly that.

The particular idea I have been taking issue with is the idea that God was dependent upon the death of Christ in order to have the legal right to pardon us. I see absolutely nothing in Scripture that even remotely suggests this.

By way of arguing against this idea, I note the following points:

a)This idea did not exist at the time the Scriptures were written. As evidence for this, I note two things:
i)There is no contemporary historical literature which suggests that animal sacrifice had this meaning (i.e., animal sacrifice pointed to a legal right to pardon being obtained).
ii)The Eastern Orthodox church does not have this idea of the atonement, and never has. Why not? Because they split off from Rome before Anselm came around. If this idea had some sort of patristic heritage, the Eastern Orthodox church would have carried it with them.

Here's an interesting article which discusses this: (http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/whats-at-stake-in-the-atonement/)

b)I see Jesus' whole life and teachings as giving meaning to His death. However, I see nothing in His life or teachings which suggest, even remotely, that Christ was dying to that God could legally forgive us. Not only does this idea not exist in Christ's life and teachings, but He acted in taught in a way that is diametrically opposed to this idea. For example:
i)His forgiveness of the paralytic.
ii)His forgiveness of the woman caught in adultery
iii)The story of the prodigal Son.
iv)His prayer on the cross "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

I'll stop there, but there are many more episodes in Jesus' life which teach that God freely forgives.



Since our repentance is dependent upon Christ's death, it's difficult to answer this question. If there was any way to "bring us to God," other than Christ's death, I'm sure that the Plan of Salvation would have consisted of that instead of Christ's death. As you have asked the question, my hesitant answer would be "yes." (hesitant because of not knowing what all you have in mind in your presuppositions here).

If everyone had repented and followed Christ, then that would have been enough, as all that is needed in order for us to be right with God is to repent, since God is already right with us. God so loved us that He gave His Son. No change needs to be effected in Him. The father of the prodigal son didn't even need to hear what the son had to say.

Interesting that you mention the prodigal son. I will be preaching this Sabbath and he's a big chunk of what I'm talking about.

Anyway, your hesitant answer to my hypothetical question clears up some things for me.

I'm curious, though, why you say that our repentance is dependent on Christ's death. Enoch and Elijah and all the OT greats repented without it (at least, not physically).

I don't think they repented without it. That is, I think the Holy Spirit revealed the Savior to them, and His death, pretty similarly to how He does for us, actually. I know when I saw Christ crucified for me, I didn't know Scripture at all, so the fact that the event was recorded in Scripture didn't matter to me. I'm sure God could have revealed something similar to them.

Also, they knew of the Plan of Salvation passed down from Adam and Eve. They had the sacrificial system which pointed to Christ.

MM: Your main argument against penal substitution is based on your private interpretation of Sister White's comments concerning Lucifer's rebellion in heaven. Who are you to complain about me quoting the SOP?

TE: This is the main argument I've used in discussions with you, for two reasons. One is that you rely so heavily on the Spirit of Prophecy. Two is that the argument is very powerful and easy to follow.

MM: First, thank you for the compliment - "... you rely so heavily on the Spirit of Prophecy." I strive to be faithful.

Secondly, you have yet to convince me, Rosangela, or Arnold of your interpretation of the SOP.

---

TE: In fact, 1 Pet. 3:18 is probably my favorite verse for discussing this, as the phrase "bring us to God" is very clear and to the point as a reason for Christ's death.

MM: Sister White places 1 Peter 3:18 in the context of penal substitution. With His sacrificial blood Jesus paid the penal price to redeem us from sin and death. He owed this debt to law and justice.

Here, as we see our Saviour in agony, the Son of God dying, the just for the unjust [1 Peter 3:18], we may learn lessons of meekness and lowliness of mind.... He gives Himself a sacrifice for sin.... He is dying for them; He is paying an infinite price for every one of them. He bears the penalty of man's sins without a murmur. {LHU 233.2}

Jesus is our atoning sacrifice. We can make no atonement for ourselves; but by faith we can accept the atonement that has been made. "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God" (1 Peter 3:18). "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, . . . but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:18, 19).... Hating sin with a perfect hatred, He yet gathered to His soul the sins of the whole world. Guiltless, He bore the punishment of the guilty. Innocent, yet offering Himself as a substitute for the transgressor. {1SM 321.4}

By the way, Tom, the title of this thread, Is Penal Substitution Biblical, was not intended to exclude the SOP. When I used the word "biblical" I had in mind the concept of inspiration. In other words, Is Penal Substitution Inspired?

If you meant "inspired," then that would have been a good title, and I would have been more responsive to your SOP quotes. Not excluding the SOP is fine, in a conversation regarding whether something is Scriptural, but you were excluding Scripture, which is what I was taking issue with.

I don't think it's wise for you to include others in your comments. Let them speak for themselves.

Regarding you, I don't have any aspirations of convincing you of anything. I have no evidence that this is possible. I can't even convince you that Lucifer sinned when Ellen White wrote that he was given an opportunity to "confess his sin."

I dialog with you as a way to improve my communication skills, and also to improve my understanding of the things we are discussing. I also hope it is in some way a blessing to you.

While you can be at times frustrating, you do, not infrequently, bring up good points which I wouldn't have thought of, and ask good questions, which also get me to think about things I wouldn't have otherwise thought about. You're a good foil.
---



I'm not seeing what you say in her quotes. It seems to me she is discussing what Peter wrote in the same context that Peter was, namely, that Christ died to "bring us to God." I see no evidence that she had a different meaning in mind for Peter's words than what Peter had.

There's nothing here that says, or implies, that Christ died in order for God to obtain the legal right to pardon us. The phrase she uses that sounds most penal seems to me to be this one:



so I'll comment on this. What she says here strikes me as meaning the same thing as this:



Especially this part: "He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His." This speaks to substitutionary atonement, with which I am in agreement. Had Christ not suffered our death, our sin would have been perpetuated, and the inevitable result would have been eternal death.

To say the same thing another way, since our sin would have beevn perpetuated had not Christ died, we would have suffered the death that He suffered. However, because He suffered this death in our place, we have the opportunity to live His life instead.

There's no idea here that He had to die in order for God to obtain the legal right to forgive us.

Also, I should add that this statement of hers makes it crystal clear that Christ suffered the second death, which doesn't have to do with this topic, but it seems this may be something you didn't agree with(?).

Since what we're getting at can be obscured by theological language, I wish to make clear that the particular point that you make that I am disagreeing with is that Christ had to die in order for God to have the legal right to forgive us. I haven't seen you present anything from Scripture that in any way suggests such a thing.

Also, it seems reasonable to assume that Jesus Christ would have explained the Gospel somewhere in His ministry, wouldn't you agree? I see Him portraying in everything He did and said the Gospel as I believe it to be. Where do you see Him *anywhere*, even once, presenting the idea that He had to die in order for God to legally forgive us (which I take to be your understanding of the Gospel, or, at least, a vital part -- the most vital part(?) -- of the Gospel; please correct me if I have this wrong).

I don't have much time this week, as I'm polishing my sermon. So just a quickie.



Here's what Strong's has for hilasterion:



It looks like "propitiation" is a better choice than "mercyseat" for this word. "Propitiation" makes sense in Heb 9:5, but "mercyseat" makes no sense in Rom 3:25. Perhaps hilasterion means mercyseat in the sense that the blood of the propitiation was sprinkled on the mercyseat.

It still looks to me that Paul's use of hilasterion points toward an expiatory aspect of Christ's death.

The word itself just means "mercy seat." What Paul intended to say is the who point of the conversation.

This is from a "wiki" argument:



Many versions translate "hilasterion" as "expiation," demonstrating that translating it as "propitiation" is not a clear cut thing.

The specific point I've been taking issue with is that the death of Christ was necessary in order for God to have the legal right to pardon us. I would also have a problem with the idea that God's wrath needed to be propitiated in order for Him to be somehow changed so that whereas before Christ died He would be unable to offer pardon whereas after Christ died it now became possible. Here's a comment by Waggoner:



Regarding the passage in Romans 3, there are many ways this has been interpreted. Penal substitution is just one possibility among many. Problems I see with the penal substitution idea include:

a)It would make Paul's theology to be different than Jesus', as nowhere in Jesus' teaching do we see Him advocating the ideas that Paul is supposedly putting forth in Romans 3.

b)The historical evidence is that the penal substitution idea did not exist at the time that Paul wrote, and wasn't formed until many centuries later.

1)At the time of Paul's writing, the idea for sacrifice that was contemporaneously understood was that set forth by Paul in Romans 12:1



No one understood sacrifice to be a means by which a deity would obtain a legal right to pardon.

2)The Eastern Orthodox church does not have this idea of the atonement. Why not? Because it split from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm came along, and it was Anselm who developed the precursor to the penal substitution idea. If the idea had existed amongst the early fathers, the Eastern Orthodox church would have carried it with them.


Because Romans 3:21ff is such a controverted passage, it should be corroborated by a clear passage. This is the general rule of interpretation; controverted statements should be backed up by uncontroverted ones. Where is a clear statement that God obtained the legal right to pardon by Christ's death that would corroborate what Paul wrote?

By the way, an interpretation I have seen of Romans 3:21-27 that I found very interesting was one done by Timothy Luke Johnston, who, along with Richard B. Hayes have argued that Paul's theology is best understood as a narrative, in which Romans 3:25 would be dealing with the faithfulness of Christ, rather than our faith in Christ. Unfortunately in moving I can't locate many materials, so can't reproduce their argument here, but here is a similar one:



Regarding "hilasterion," Dodd is a well known scholar who has argued that Paul's use of the term here is not connected to God's wrath.

The narrative idea is more or less that God, through Jesus Christ, has revealed His righteousness, by whom He has reconciled us by way of His death. Ellen White wrote:



This goes along with what Peter wrote in 1 Pet. 3:18, that Christ died in order to "bring us to God." I see that Paul, in Romans 3, is expressing the same idea.

Unless you can prove sinners were pardoned without slaying an animal then you do not have an argument against penal substitution. Exodus and Leviticus make it clear - no death means no pardon.

This is an utterly unfounded statement. Why should one suppose that the *only* reason that pardon necessitated the slaying of an animal is penal substitution? Animal sacrifices went on for centuries, millenia even, without anyone having the idea that this was necessary because of penal substitution.

Where in the Old Testament is there even the hint of the idea that the reason that sacrifices were necessary was so that God would have the legal right to pardon? (and the same question in regards to Jesus' teaching is still open).

Tom, please address the point concerning the sacrificial system Jesus ordained. Here it is again in question form: Was pardon granted without death? Or, were sinners required to slay an animal in order to receive forgiveness?

By the way, please do not cite your private interpretation of Sister White's comments regarding Lucifer. She is clearly not saying what you think. Nothing even remotely suggests GOd can pardon willful sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus.

Ok, I'll do that, but you didn't address the point I was making, which is that there is no reason to presuppose that the reason for the sacrifices was so God would have the legal right to pardon. There is nothing from Moses that speaks to the idea that God needed a legal right to pardon, and the Hebrews did not understand the sacrifices to have that meaning.

To answer your question, I can't put it better than Fifield did here:



Ellen White expressed a similar thought:



The slain animal presented as an offering represented Christ, without whom pardon would be impossible, for the reasons Fifield stated. Yes, a price was paid, yes, the sacrifice was necessary. But why? That's the big question. I think Fifield's answer above nails they why, or, Ellen White's quote above as well that God, out of His love, provided the sacrifice that reconciles us to Himself.



Here's what she wrote:



I could just quote this each time, but that's a bit wordy. The point is that your idea that God needs the death of Christ in order to have the legal right to forgive obviously does not agree with this statement I am quoting here (no private interpretation here, just a quote. The quote is exactly what I think she is saying.)

Then why all the sacrifices for ignorant/unintentional sins? If one sinned ignorantly, that basically means that they didn't mean to do it. That means that there's really no "broken" relationship to fix or animosity from the sinner. Yet, a sacrifice was still necessary.

BTW, I think that Fifield quote is saying something quite different from the PK quote. Fifield was arguing against the thought that Christ's sacrifice appeased God, while EGW was arguing against the thought that animal sacrifice was meritorious.

This is from a web site:



If I do something in ignorance which offends you, and find out about it, it's only natural that I should do something to make amends, even though I was acting in ignorance. The inclination to want to do something to make amends comes spontaneously from the person who has acted wrongly. God, for our own benefit, allowed the presentation of sacrifices as a sign that everything was OK in the relationship.

The problem is always on our end. God is like Jesus Christ. Can we imagine Jesus needing some sort of offering so that He can forgive? He didn't ask for anything. He freely forgave the paralytic, freely forgave the woman caught in adultery, freely forgave the publican, and on the cross prayed that God would freely forgive those who were torturing and killing Him. God is like that.



I think this is just two sides of the same coin. If you look at Waggoner's thoughts, in particular, on Romans 3 (http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/aor/rom03.htm) you can see that his thoughts run in concert with EGW's, mentioning, e.g., the same thing she did in relation to prayers not meriting forgiveness.

An excellent book to read on the subject of the atonement in general is "Christus Victor" by Gustav Aulen. A Non-Violent Atonement by J. Denny Weaver is also very interesting. Aulen's book is more historical, while Weaver goes more into the philosophical implications involved in God's requiring violence in order to be able to forgive.

And there's the difficulty. Yes, the sacrifice only came in when the sin was discovered. (Obviously, we wouldn't be offering sacrifices unless the sin was known to us.) When the sin was discovered, why would a sacrifice be necessary? If amends needed to be made, what needed amending?

Since the sin was ignorantly done, there was no bad attitude on the sinner's part. Same goes for God, since there was no bad relationship. So, what's the sacrifice for, if the relationship between God and sinner was not broken?

Can it be merely to signify that all is OK? Did Jesus have to die to say everything is fine? Or does killing an animal have some kind of merit?


I'll have to look into this more, but I don't think they're the same coin at all. One is saying something about Christ's sacrifice, while the other is saying something about animal sacrifice. Fifield says, "Christ's sacrifice was not for X," while EGW says, "Animal sacrifices were not for Y." They are not directly related.

As I stated, it's only natural that if I do something wrong to you in ignorance, when I find out about it, I make amends. I say, "I'm sorry." You say, "No problem. I forgive you." The relationship is repaired. The sacrifices are about this.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to read into anything about obtaining a legal right to pardon. Moses, who wrote the books talking about the sacrifices, said nothing about this, and the Hebrews, who practiced the sacrifices for centuries, didn't believe this.



As above. Even though there was no bad attitude, there was still wrong that had been done.



There's no "or" here. That is, there's no reason to think that either Jesus had to die to say everything is fine or that killing an animal has some kind of merit. These two things do not form some kind of set representing the possible reasons for Jesus' death.

In answer to the first question, in the case of sins of ignorance, I would think that the principle meaning of the sacrifice was for the sinner to recognize he had done wrong and to ask for forgiveness, repledging allegiance to God, as well as God's acceptance of the repentance. Of course, it also has the meaning that God Himself was providing the sacrifice that would reconcile. And there are a great many other meanings one can discern in the sacrifice of Christ. There isn't just one model of the atonement. There are many, and all seem to have some merit. I just don't see that in any valid model of the atonement is it necessary for God to obtain the legal right to pardon. Why would He need such a right? He already had the right, simply by virtue of being God.

Regarding the second question, yes. As Ellen White put it:



Or, as Peter put it, Christ died to "bring us to God."

Regarding killing an animal having merit, no, of course not. I'm not understanding why you asked that one.

Arnold, I'd like to invite you to consider some of the points I've been trying to make. First of all, I recognize that the penal substitution model of the atonement is very entrenched in us. It's what we are taught. It's the language we know. So even the idea that it might be possible that it's not a valid model is hard to fathom. It took me 30 years to come around to the way of thinking I have now, and was a road that covered a long distance and had many curves.

Here are the main points that have made a difference to me:

a)I see nothing in Jesus' teaching that suggests that His death was for the purpose of allowing God to be legally able to forgive us. On the other hand, I see specific teachings to suggest the contrary, both in what He said and did.

b)Historically, the Hebrews did not believe this idea, in fact, no culture did. The idea was not enunciated by any of the early fathers. We don't see the idea at all until the "midnight of the world" which was the "noon of the papacy," which would make this teaching, if true, unique, being the only truth that disappeared from view during the time when light was receding only to put up at the very time when darkness was at its greatest.

c)The Eastern Orthodox church does not have the penal idea. Why not? Because they split from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm. It's hard to fathom how it could be the case that they would not have this belief if it were Scriptural. As they point out, it wasn't in any of the creeds or writings of the fathers of the church.

I'll keep it simple and leave it with these three things. Or maybe four. A fourth point is that, if penal substitution were true, God would be dependent upon violence in order to legally pardon us. That's a really weird idea. God shouldn't have to be dependent upon something which has no place in His government in order to do something legally sanctioned by His government. This would imply, among other things, that His government was not perfect (if perfect, God should not be dependent upon a principle outside of it, such as violence, in order to accomplish His purposes).

Tom, neither Fifield nor Sister White addressed the question in the quotes you posted. Here is the question again - Were sinners required to sacrifice an animal to obtain forgiveness? Or, was death optional?

In order to obtain forgiveness, what is necessary is repentance and faith in Christ. The sacrifices were a type of Christ. They had no merit in themselves. They testified to the repentance and faith of the one offering the sacrifice, similar to what partaking of communion is for us.

I understood what you were really getting at as having to do with if it was necessary for Christ to die, which is what the quotes I provided were addressing (i.e., why Christ's death was necessary).

I am talking about the sacrificial system. Was killing an animal optional or required to obtain forgiveness?

That was the question I was answering.

Your question is analogous to asking if baptism or communion is necessary to obtain forgiveness.

As Paul points out in Hebrews, the blood of animals was never sufficient for the taking away of sins. Only the blood of Christ can accomplish this. However, the offering of sacrifices in their time, like communion in ours, testified to the faith the offerers of the sacrifice had in Christ.

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding your answer. Did Jesus require the Jews to slay an animal in order to obtain forgiveness? Or, was it optional?

By the way, nice to see you're back. Hope you had a nice Christmas.

Is baptism optional? I would say in the same way that baptism is or is not optional, the slaying of the sacrifices was or was not. I'm really not understanding your difficulty in understanding what I wrote. I wouldn't think you would believe anything different from what I wrote. That is, I doubt we have any difference of opinion on this point.

To clarify, you don't believe there was any merit in the animal sacrifices, correct? The merit is in Christ alone. However, these sacrifices witness to the faith the offerers of the sacrifice have in Christ, similar to how our faith in Christ is attested to by baptism or communion.

We are saved by faith, not by works, but our works will attest to our faith.

Yes, Christmas has been good. Hope you had a merry one, too.

So, if I read you right, you believe slaying an animal was optional for Jews. They could obtain pardon for their sins without slaying an animal.

Is baptism optional?

No.

Does this mean you believe Jews could not obtain pardon without slaying an animal?

No.

Does this mean you believe Jews could not obtain pardon without slaying an animal?

Given that I wrote the following:



and given that you don't think baptism is optional, why do you think I think the animal sacrifices were optional?

MM, I wrote this:



which seems to me like it should answer your question.

Do you disagree with what I wrote? (quoted)

MM: Does this mean you believe Jews could not obtain pardon without slaying an animal?

TE: ... why do you think I think the animal sacrifices were optional?

MM: What?

I don't know how to answer the question better than I already have. Let me ask again if you disagree with this:



If there's something here you disagree with, we can discuss it. If you agree with this, then there shouldn't be any question.

Before we switch gears, please answer my question plainly. Were Jews required to kill an animal to obtain forgiveness? Yes or no, please.

MM, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no please.

There are questions, many of which you like to ask for some reason, that simply cannot be answered "yes" or "no". The beating your wife question is a classic example. For this reason I give a detailed answer.

I've answered your question in detail, several times now. If you want to discuss this further, I direct you to those answers. If there's something in those answers you do not understand, please quote it, and we'll discuss that.

The following I addressed to Arthur, but I'd also be interested in your thoughts.

a)I see nothing in Jesus' teaching that suggests that His death was for the purpose of allowing God to be legally able to forgive us. On the other hand, I see specific teachings to suggest the contrary, both in what He said and did.

b)Historically, the Hebrews did not believe this idea, in fact, no culture did. The idea was not enunciated by any of the early fathers. We don't see the idea at all until the "midnight of the world" which was the "noon of the papacy," which would make this teaching, if true, unique, being the only truth that disappeared from view during the time when light was receding only to put up at the very time when darkness was at its greatest.

c)The Eastern Orthodox church does not have the penal idea. Why not? Because they split from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm. It's hard to fathom how it could be the case that they would not have this belief if it were Scriptural. As they point out, it wasn't in any of the creeds or writings of the fathers of the church.

I'll keep it simple and leave it with these three things. Or maybe four. A fourth point is that, if penal substitution were true, God would be dependent upon violence in order to legally pardon us. That's a really weird idea. God shouldn't have to be dependent upon something which has no place in His government in order to do something legally sanctioned by His government. This would imply, among other things, that His government was not perfect (if perfect, God should not be dependent upon a principle outside of it, such as violence, in order to accomplish His purposes).

Tom, before we switch to whether or not I have stopped beating my wife, please answer my question. Thank you. Here it is again:

Were Jews required to kill an animal to obtain forgiveness?

For example, when Jesus said, "Thou shalt" or "He shall" in the following verses, are we to assume it was optional?

Exodus
29:12 And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom of the altar.
29:16 And thou shalt slay the ram, and thou shalt take his blood, and sprinkle [it] round about upon the altar.
30:10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it [is] most holy unto the LORD.

Leviticus
3:2 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it [at] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
4:29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
4:30 And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put [it] upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.

In the case of Cain and Abel, was killing an animal optional?

Genesis
4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

TE: The following I addressed to Arthur, but I'd also be interested in your thoughts.

MM: Before I can address these points I need to be clear on your answer to the above question. I still don't know what you believe about it. You haven't stated your position clearly.

That blood (i.e. death) was required to make atonement for sin is clear in the following text:

Leviticus
17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

That blood is necessary for atonement has never been disputed. What is being disputed is your idea that God needs blood in order to have the legal right to pardon. So far, you haven't set forth any evidence that this is the case.

Regarding the question of the necessity of animal sacrifice, repentance and faith in Christ is required. The sacrificing of animals was a sign of having faith in Christ. It was required in the same sense that circumcision was required.

The question about your wife is not "switching" anything, but an illustration of why your "yes" or "no" question can't be answered "yes" or "no". This reminds me of the types of questions the pharisees asked Jesus in an attempt to trap him.

If I answer "no," then you could ask, "then why did God command they perform them"? If I answer "yes," then you could ask, "Isn't the sacrifice of Christ sufficient"?

If there is some point you wish to make, please make it. Also, your response to the points I made to Arthur and invited you to address (I've made them elsewhere to you on other occasions as well, but don't recall your addressing them) would be appreciated.

"... for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." Not the affect or influence it has upon sinners. The death of Jesus serves to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice, without which no man can be pardoned. Yes, His cruel death on the cross motivates us to hate sin and to love and obey Him; but it was also required to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. Death must come in consequence of man's sin. I have repeatedly quoted passage that support this truth.

---

TE: Regarding the question of the necessity of animal sacrifice, repentance and faith in Christ is required. The sacrificing of animals was a sign of having faith in Christ. It was required in the same sense that circumcision was required.

MM: Comparing blood atonement with circumcision misses the mark. Circumcision has nothing to do with repentance and pardon. Your answer to my oft repeated question is still unclear.

---

TE: If I answer "yes," then you could ask, "Isn't the sacrifice of Christ sufficient"?

MM: If you answer, yes, I would simply say you are in harmony with the law of God. The reason Jesus commanded the Jews to kill an animal to obtain pardon is because it reflects the truth regarding the relationship between sin and death and pardon.

But that's what the atonement is all about! It "at-one-ment." It is precisely the affect or influence the blood has upon sinners that is the whole issue. God is fine. He needs no affect or influence.



There aren't two different things going on here. Peter points out that Christ bore our sins in His flesh "to bring us to God." You pointed out that EGW describes this same Scripture (I think it was you) in the legal language you're using. They're both talking about the same thing! Our being reconciled to God is what needs to be accomplished, an "at-one-ment."



Of course death must come in consequence of sin. Sin results in death.




You're not understanding circumcision if you think it has nothing to do with repentance and pardon. This may explain why my answer isn't clear to you.




Paul writes that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. What do you think Paul's point was?

Would you please address my post #93998?

"At-one-ment" means to be at one with the requirements of law and justice. God, as well as sinners, must be in harmony with the just and loving demands of law and justice. The death of Jesus satisfies both.

---

"In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin." (CON 22) This applies to every sinner. That is, every sinner must die because they have sinned. Pardon is not a substitute for the death law and justice requires. The first death is not a substitute for the death law and justice requires. Jesus had to die for our sins in order to have the legal right to pardon and save us.

---

Please show me where circumcision atoned for sin in the same way animal sacrifices atoned for sin.

---

MM: If you answer, yes, I would simply say you are in harmony with the law of God. The reason Jesus commanded the Jews to kill an animal to obtain pardon is because it reflects the truth regarding the relationship between sin and death and pardon.

TE: Paul writes that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. What do you think Paul's point was?

MM: I am not disputing the fact animal sacrifices symbolize the death of Jesus. I am simply asking you a question about it.

1. Was obtaining pardon for sin conditional upon Jews killing an animal?

2. Was it optional when Jesus commanded the Jews to kill an animal to obtain pardon?

I cannot address these points until you plainly answer my questions above.

Sure you can. In particular, points b) and c) are historical, and have no relation whatsoever to whatever points you are discussing.

"At-one-ment" means to be at one with God. This should be obvious beyond description. But just in case it's not, here's a quote:






Where do you get this idea from? Jesus, as our Creator *has* the legal right to pardon and save us. He doesn't have to obtain a legal right that He has always had.

---


Why are you making such an odd request?

You wrote that circumcision has nothing to do with repentance and pardon. I responded that if you think this is the case, then you do not understand circumcision. A more reasonable question would be for you to ask me to explain to you why circumcision has to do with pardon and repentance. Instead, you've gone off into some other area with no explanation.



As am I. I'm asking you what you think Paul's point was in saying that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin.



Pardon is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, of whom the sacrifices offered by the Jews were a type. Faith is what was required. Anyone would faith would do what God requested, just like now those who have faith partake in communion or baptism.

In order to help the Jews to better understand the Plan of Salvation, God implemented the sacrificial system. By the means of type and anti-type, the Jews could better learn of Christ, the true sacrificial Lamb who takes away sin. As Paul pointed out, the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. Nevertheless, these sacrifices were useful in providing a means by which to better understand Christ, who is the door.



Same response.

"At-one-ment" means to be at one with God. This should be obvious beyond description. But just in case it's not, here's a quote:






Where do you get this idea from? Jesus, as our Creator *has* the legal right to pardon and save us. He doesn't have to obtain a legal right that He has always had.

---


Why are you making such an odd request?

You wrote that circumcision has nothing to do with repentance and pardon. I responded that if you think this is the case, then you do not understand circumcision. A more reasonable question would be for you to ask me to explain to you why circumcision has to do with pardon and repentance. Instead, you've gone off into some other area with no explanation.



As am I. I'm asking you what you think Paul's point was in saying that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin.



Pardon is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, of whom the sacrifices offered by the Jews were a type. Faith is what was required. Anyone would faith would do what God requested, just like now those who have faith partake in communion or baptism.

In order to help the Jews to better understand the Plan of Salvation, God implemented the sacrificial system. By the means of type and anti-type, the Jews could better learn of Christ, the true sacrificial Lamb who takes away sin. As Paul pointed out, the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. Nevertheless, these sacrifices were useful in providing a means by which to better understand Christ, who is the door.



Pardon is obtained by faith in Christ. Not by killing animals. Your question assumes a false premise.

The sacrifices testified to the faith of the believer.

TE: "At-one-ment" means to be at one with God.

MM: Which you and I both agree means the same thing as being at one with the just and loving demands of law and justice, which are a transcript of God's character. It is the "the remedial sacrifice of Christ" that makes us at one with God, at one with with law and justice.

---

TE: Jesus, as our Creator *has* the legal right to pardon and save us. He doesn't have to obtain a legal right that He has always had.

MM: He lost the right to pardon us the instant A&E sinned. We became the rightful property of Satan. But Jesus interposed. With His blood He ransomed us from sin and Satan. He earned the right to pardon and save us. He paid the penalty that law and justice demanded. Here is how Sister White put it:

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. Our ransom has been paid by our Saviour. {1SM 309}

---

TE: Why are you making such an odd request?

MM: You wrote, "The sacrificing of animals was a sign of having faith in Christ. It was required in the same sense that circumcision was required." In what way are they the "same sense"?

---

TE: Pardon is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, of whom the sacrifices offered by the Jews were a type. Pardon is obtained by faith in Christ. Not by killing animals.

MM: Of course pardon was conditional upon Jews having faith in Jesus' substitutionary death. But my question is - Was obtaining pardon for sin also conditional upon Jews killing an animal? Or, was faith in Jesus sufficient without also having to kill an animal?

TE: "At-one-ment" means to be at one with God.

MM: Which you and I both agree means the same thing as being at one with the just and loving demands of law and justice, which are a transcript of God's character. It is the "the remedial sacrifice of Christ" that makes us at one with God, at one with with law and justice.

It's faith that makes us one with God. The sacrifice is the means to an end.

---

TE: Jesus, as our Creator *has* the legal right to pardon and save us. He doesn't have to obtain a legal right that He has always had.

MM: He lost the right to pardon us the instant A&E sinned.

Really? Well I guess this is consistent with your view regarding Lucifer.

Your position is that God only offered Lucifer pardon while he wasn't sinning, as long as he didn't need it. But as soon as Lucifer sinned, he couldn't have pardon. So I suppose it's consistent that as soon as Adam and Eve sinned God would be unable to offer them pardon as well.

Is there anything from Scripture you would like to present that gives the idea that God lost the right to pardon us when Adam and Eve sinned?

We became the rightful property of Satan. But Jesus interposed. With His blood He ransomed us from sin and Satan. He earned the right to pardon and save us. He paid the penalty that law and justice demanded. Here is how Sister White put it:

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. Our ransom has been paid by our Saviour. {1SM 309}

This is just what Christus Victor teaches! This is also called "the ransom theory." This theory predates Anselm by a thousand years, and the penal theory by 1500.

There's nothing in this statement about God's losing or obtaining a legal right to pardon. EGW is expressing basically the same view Iraneus and other early Christian writers presented, who had no concept whatsoever of losing or obtaining legal rights.

---

TE: Why are you making such an odd request?

MM: You wrote, "The sacrificing of animals was a sign of having faith in Christ. It was required in the same sense that circumcision was required." In what way are they the "same sense"?

In the sense of being a sign of having faith in Christ, as I wrote.
---

TE: Pardon is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, of whom the sacrifices offered by the Jews were a type. Pardon is obtained by faith in Christ. Not by killing animals.

MM: Of course pardon was conditional upon Jews having faith in Jesus' substitutionary death.

I didn't write "conditional upon" but "obtained by."

But my question is - Was obtaining pardon for sin also conditional upon Jews killing an animal? Or, was faith in Jesus sufficient without also having to kill an animal?

This is another question with an assumed false premise. Faith is manifest by works. In particular, for the Jews, faith in Christ was manifest by offering sacrifices. So only those who didn't have faith would not offer sacrifices. Hence your question is assuming an impossible situation. No one with faith in Christ would not offer the sacrifice.

Let's say the person committed some sin, and repented of the sin, and by faith in Christ asked for forgiveness, and then died of a stroke immediately before being able to offer a sacrifice. That person would be pardoned. The animal sacrifice would not be necessary.

This is the only situation I could think of that fits your criteria of a Jew in the time of Moses having faith in Christ but not offering a sacrifice.

TE: It's faith that makes us one with God. The sacrifice is the means to an end.

MM: The point is - animal sacrifices were required because God established things in such a way law and justice demand death for sin. Faith appropriates the substitutionary death of Jesus. Both are necessary for God to pardon and save us.

---

TE: But as soon as Lucifer sinned, he couldn't have pardon.

MM: Correct. She wrote, "no provision had been made to save those [angels] who should venture to transgress His law." (SR 18)

---

TE: Is there anything from Scripture you would like to present that gives the idea that God lost the right to pardon us when Adam and Eve sinned?

MM: Yes. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

---

TE: There's nothing in this statement about God's losing or obtaining a legal right to pardon.

MM: Of course it does. "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 ...."

---

TE: In the sense of being a sign of having faith in Christ, as I wrote.

MM: Faith is not enough to obtain pardon. By faith Jews killed an animal to obtain pardon. Faith without works is dead. Jesus had to work to secure our salvation. Law and justice demanded His death.

---

TE: I didn't write "conditional upon" but "obtained by." Pardon is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ.

MM: Again, faith is not enough to obtain pardon. Jesus had to die to satisfy the demands of law and justice. Pardon was conditional upon Jesus paying our sin debt of death. Because His death met this requirement, He earned the right to pardon penitent sinners.

---

TE: No one with faith in Christ would not offer the sacrifice.

MM: I guess this is as close as I'll ever get to an answer. It resembles a - Yes. At least more so than a no. I hear you saying a faithful Jew would kill an animal because Jesus made it conditional upon obtaining pardon. So, the next question is - Why did Jesus make obtaining pardon conditional upon killing an animal?

---

TE: That person would be pardoned. The animal sacrifice would not be necessary.

MM: Only because Jesus is the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Jesus earned the right to pardon him because He paid the death penalty on his behalf.

This sentence doesn't make sense. You're missing something in between "in such a way" and what follows after that.



Certainly. With the substitutionary death of Jesus, faith would be impossible.

---



Correct?! What sense would this make? God offers pardon as long as it's not needed, and as soon as it is, He stops?

Also, what do you do with the statement that God offered to restore Lucifer if he would "confess his sin"?



Well, she's obviously not contradicting herself, so she must not have God's offer to restore Lucifer if he would confess his sin her, correct?

Rather than read things in context, you are pulling a phrase out, without considering its intended meaning. This phrase is dealing with the warning that God gave the angels that if they should follow Satan, they would not be able to return.

By the way, do you think that God has made provision to save anyone who ventures to transgress His law?

---


This verse says that Adam and Eve would die if they sinned. Where does it say anything about God's losing His right to pardon us?

---



This is Christus Victor, as I mentioned. Iraneus wrote pretty much this very statement shortly after Christ's death. He had no idea of penal substitution or legal rights.

---



The act of killing the animal did not obtain pardon. The sacrifice of the animal pointed to the death of Christ. The merit is attached to Christ, not to the animals.



This is correct, which is why I wrote that the faith of those offering the sacrifice was demonstrated by what they did.



I agree with this, but there is no implication in saying this that God had lost any legal rights or needed to obtain legal rights.

---



Pardon is offered on the condition of repentance and submission.



As Waggoner pointed out, God has the right to pardon whom He will. God is not dependent upon death in order to be able to pardon.

---



You have a better chance of getting yes and no answers if you don't ask questions which assume false premises.



That's not what I said. The faith of the believer in Christ was testified by the act of offering a sacrifice which typified Christ.



This is another FOTAP example. (fallacy of the assumed premise).

Pardon is conditional upon faith in Christ. The sacrifice typified Christ, which is the reason for the command.

---



You keep repeating this, but without supporting evidence. I would be more interested in the evidence than the repeated statement.

I would also very much like it if you would consider the post I've been asking your to for some time now. That post has historical arguments, which I've addressed to you several times now, even before that post, but you've never responded to these points.

MM: Animal sacrifices were required because God established things in such a way that law and justice demand death for sin.


MM: It would be impossible for God to pardon penitent sinners without the substitutionary death of Jesus because law and justice prohibit it. Death must come in consequence of man’s sin because law and justice demand it – not because it motivates sinners to love and obey God.


MM: God did not offer to pardon sin after Lucifer was guilty of sinning. He offered to pardon the fact he entertained untrue thoughts and feelings about Him. Such things did not become sin until after he chose to pursue his course even though he was convinced it would be wrong to do so.


MM: The quote applies to all angels. And in principle to applies to all FMAs who choose to sin after receiving a full knowledge of God. “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”


MM: It says sinners will die the instant they sin. It doesn’t say they will be pardoned. Law and justice require death for sin. God cannot pardon sinners without a divine substitution; law and justice forbid it. In sense, God lost the right to pardon sinners. He “gained the right” when Jesus paid the death penalty for sin.


MM: Jesus had to pay the price to earn the right to own sinners. The currency required was death. It’s what law and justice demanded.


MM: Jews were required to kill an animal to obtain pardon. Yes, it symbolizes faith in Jesus’ atoning, substitutionary death; nevertheless, they were also required to kill an animal. Faith alone in Jesus’ death was not adequate to obtain pardon.


MM: What they did was required because law and justice demand death for sin. Killing an animal symbolized the fact Jesus had to die to pay the sin debt of death because death must come in consequence of man’s sin.


MM: The fact law and justice demanded His substitutionary death makes it a legal rights issue. No death means no right to pardon sinners.


MM: Only because God earned the right to offer pardon in the first place. Repentance and submission mean nothing without the death of Jesus. The only reason law and justice can entertain our repentance and submission is due to the fact God earned the legal right to offer pardon.


MM: The entire sacrificial system disagrees with you. No death means no right to pardon sinners. Plain and simple.


MM: Oops. I’m right back where I started. I have no idea what you believe. At times it seems like you believe - Yes, of course, Jews were required to kill an animal to obtain pardon. Naturally, you are quick to add killing an animal symbolized faith in the atoning, substitutionary death of Jesus. And I agree.


MM: Now it sounds like you are saying, No, killing an animal, which symbolized faith in Jesus’ atoning, substitutionary death, was not made a condition upon obtaining pardon. Which makes it sound like death was not required to obtain pardon, which begs the question – Why did Jesus command Jews to kill animals?


MM: But why did Jesus command the Jews to kill animals? Why was it associated with obtaining pardon? What is the link between pardon and death?


MM: The historical arguments you posted mean nothing to me if they are irrelevant. If penal substitution is based on inspired passages, the fact historians didn’t get it is, at best, unfortunate.

No Jew believed this.

The animal sacrifices prefigured the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, whom God gave to man so man could be reconciled to Him.



Death comes as a consequence to sin because sin results in death. There's an organic relationship. The whole problem is with sin. Sin must be overcome, which necessitates faith. It was necessary for Jesus Christ to be given to us so what we might have faith, and be reconciled to God. As Jesus put it, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life".



Yes He did!





This two quotes are talking about the same episode, which is the time when Lucifer made his final decision to oppose God. In the GC quote is says that God offered Lucifer pardon. In the SP quote it says that he was given the opportunity to confess his sin.



This doesn't fit either common sense or what was written. Pardon is offered for sin, not for entertaining untrue thoughts and feelings. Lucifer was given the opportunity to "confess his SIN" so he had clearly sinned.

How could the point that Lucifer had sinned been more clearly indicated than saying that he was given the opportunity to confess his sin?



The quote applies to specific angels, the ones who were contemplating following Satan in rebellion.



Agreed, and this was my point. God has made no provision for anyone to venture to transgress His law. However, God has made provision for those who repent to be restored.



No it doesn't. I suggest you study the Hebrew some so you can obtain an idea as to what it's actually saying.



The point of the text was that sin results in death. It wasn't addressing pardon.



Sin results in death. The sting of death is sin. The wages of sin is death. This is not because of an arbitrary requirement, but is an organic relationship between sin and death.



Lucifer's case makes it clear this is simply not true. Lucifer was given an opportunity to repent and confess his sin, and he would have been pardoned and restored to his position had he done so.



I mostly agree with this, although the words mean something very different to me than they do to you.

Divine justice, according to Scripture, is redemptive and restorative, not retributive. Justice is satisfied when redemption occurs. This is the Biblical idea, of which there is much, much evidence (which I can produce upon request).

I wouldn't say Christ "earned the right" as Christ has no need to "earn" anything, being God, and having no debts, but Christ obtained the ability to "own" us by His death; I agree with this.



From EGW:



Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone. It is not obtain by faith plus works. Works testify to faith, but are not added to faith to obtain salvation.



No Jew had this idea when offering the sacrifice.

Yours is just one possible theory. There are many other ideas about the meaning of the sacrifices.



This is clearly seen not to be true by Lucifer's case. There's also no Scriptural evidence that this is the case. You have produced no text that says that the sacrifice of Christ was necessary in order for God to have the legal right to pardon. You just have a circular argument.

When I pointed out that you have produced no Scriptural evidence for the idea that God required death in order to be able to legally pardon, you gave as evidence of this the sacrificial system! That's totally circular!

The whole issue we're discussing is why the sacrifice was necessary. *That* the sacrifice was necessary is not in dispute. Please produce some Scriptural evidence that the *reason* the sacrifice was necessary was so God could legally forgive. Don't just keep repeating this over and over again. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. I see you repeated this same idea 7 times in one post, yet none of the 7 times did you adduce any proof, or even attempt to do so.

Where did Christ say, "I am going to die to earn the legal right for My Father to pay you?" It doesn't have to be in these words, but where did He communicate this idea?

I'll stop here to keep this post from being longer.

Not true!



There was no death of Jesus here, no "legal right" was "earned" to be able to offer pardon.



This is absurd. You have one way of looking at this, while millions of people have another. You assert that the sacrificial system disagrees with me for no other reason than you have a different idea about what it means than I do.

What I believe is in harmony with what the Jews believed when they offered the sacrifices. (e.g. Romans 12:1) No Jew, not Abraham, not Moses, not David, none, had the idea that they were offering a sacrifice because it was necessary for God to obtain the legal right to pardon sin. So if the entire sacrificial system disagrees with me, it also disagrees with Abraham, Moses, David, and every other Jew that ever offered sacrifices.



There's no reason not to know what I believe. I've been saying the many times now. Faith in Christ is what is necessary to obtain pardon. Christ was symbolized in the animals sacrificed.



I'm saying the same thing I've been saying. Faith in Christ is necessary. The sacrificed animals typified Christ.



The sacrifice stood for a giving of self, a dedication, a part of which included repentance and the confessing of sin. This understanding was common not just to the Hebrews, but to other cultures as well. The difference in Christianity, or true Judaism one could say, from other religions is that there is also the understanding that the true sacrifice, the true giving of self, is the gift of God giving Himself to us through His Son.

David expressed the idea here:





History is not irrelevant. It helps dispel ignorance. (e.g. believing Sabbath was changed to Sunday).



If the historical facts are such that an inspired passage cannot mean a certain thing, then that's relevant and important. We use historical facts all the time to prove our positions on the Sabbath vs. Sunday, for the 2300 prophecy and many other things.

Tom, there really isn't much we can that hasn't already been said. We simply disagree.

You could respond to the arguments I made in the post that I asked you to respond to several times. I think there were 4 points. Simply stating that the history arguments are irrelevant is too facile.

Also, I requested that you write out what you think the problem is, and how God solved the problem. I guess that's if you have more to say on this than simply Christ's dying earned God the legal right to pardon us.

Other than that, thanks for your participation.

I thought of one other item I'd appreciate your comment on:



In particular, you wrote:



Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Of course, genuine faith is testified to by works, but we are not saved by faith plus works. Similarly pardon is not obtained by faith plus works.

TE: Simply stating that the history arguments are irrelevant is too facile.

MM: That’s not what I posted. Here’s what I wrote: “The historical arguments you posted mean nothing to me if they are irrelevant. If penal substitution is based on inspired passages, the fact historians didn’t get it is, at best, unfortunate.”

---

MM: Jews were required to kill an animal to obtain pardon. Yes, it symbolizes faith in Jesus’ atoning, substitutionary death; nevertheless, they were also required to kill an animal. Faith alone in Jesus’ death was not adequate to obtain pardon.

TE: Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Of course, genuine faith is testified to by works, but we are not saved by faith plus works. Similarly pardon is not obtained by faith plus works.

MM: In the case of the OT Jews, which is what I am talking about, both pardon and salvation depended on two things - 1) Faith in Jesus’ atoning, substitutionary death, and 2) Killing an animal. Faith alone in Jesus’ death was not adequate to obtain pardon or salvation. True, there was no merit in killing an animal. Nevertheless, pardon and salvation were conditional upon it.

DA 763
It was because the law was changeless, because man could be saved only through obedience to its precepts, that Jesus was lifted up on the cross. {DA 762.5}

FW 94
Man cannot be saved without obedience, but his works should not be of himself; Christ should work in him to will and to do of His good pleasure. {FW 94.1}

SW 21
There are two distinct classes--those who are saved through faith in Christ and through obedience to His law, and those who refuse the truth as it is in Jesus. {SW 21.2}

FW 95
While we are to be in harmony with God's law, we are not saved by the works of the law, yet we cannot be saved without obedience…. He does not save us by law, neither will He save us in disobedience to law. {FW 95.3}

PP 279
By obedience the people were to give evidence of their faith. So all who hope to be saved by the merits of the blood of Christ should realize that they themselves have something to do in securing their salvation. While it is Christ only that can redeem us from the penalty of transgression, we are to turn from sin to obedience. Man is to be saved by faith, not by works; yet his faith must be shown by his works. God has given His Son to die as a propitiation for sin, He has manifested the light of truth, the way of life, He has given facilities, ordinances, and privileges; and now man must co-operate with these saving agencies; he must appreciate and use the helps that God has provided -- believe and obey all the divine requirements. {PP 279.1}

Equally facile and inadequate as a response.

The historical arguments are not irrelevant. People exist in a certain milieu. Just as in mathematics, it would have been impossible for someone in 50 A.D. to speak of complex numbers (since nobody knew about such things), it would have been impossible for Paul, or the other writers, to speak of penal substitution. Their milieu does not allow for it.

---



There's no difference for how salvation is obtained for OT Jews or NT Jews or Gentiles or whoever. For all, salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Salvation, or pardon, is not a "faith plus works" thing, regardless of the time a person lives.



These quotes all say what I'm saying. Faith is testified by works. None contradict her statement that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone. It's not "faith plus works" but "faith which works."