To whom or what did Jesus "pay the price" for our redemption?

It was love for sinners that led Christ to pay the price of redemption. {PK 692.2}

God suffered with His Son. In the agony of Gethsemane, the death of Calvary, the heart of Infinite Love paid the price of our redemption. {SC 13.2}

He gave Himself for our sins, and to every soul He freely offers the blood-bought pardon. {COL 244.3}

The Lord has paid the price of His own blood for the salvation of the world. {FE 527.1}

He has paid the price for the sinner's redemption. Yet it is only through faith in His blood that Jesus can justify the believer. {RC 78.4}

And having with His own blood paid the price of redemption, having passed through man's experience, having in man's behalf met and conquered temptation, having, though Himself sinless, borne the shame and guilt and burden of sin, He becomes man's Advocate and Intercessor. {7BC 926.3}

You are God's employed servants, delegated to build up His kingdom in the earth, and you are to do your part in saving the souls for whom Christ has paid the price of His own blood. {CSW 121.1}

The glorious Redeemer of a lost world was suffering the penalty of man's transgression of the Father's law. He was about to ransom His people with His own blood. He was paying the just claims of God's holy law. This was the means through which an end was to be finally made of sin and Satan, and his host to be vanquished. {2T 208.2}

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}

The wonderful symbol of the living bird dipped in the blood of the bird slain and then set free to its joyous life, is to us the symbol of the atonement. There were death and life blended, presenting to the searcher for truth the hidden treasure, the union of the pardoning blood with the resurrection and life of our Redeemer. The bird slain was over living water; that flowing stream was a symbol of the ever flowing, ever cleansing efficacy of the blood of Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, the fountain that was open for Judah and Jerusalem, wherein they may wash and be clean from every stain of sin. We are to have free access to the atoning blood of Christ. {1BC 1111.4}

This is represented as the pardoning blood, inseparably connected with the resurrection and life of our Redeemer, illustrated by the ever-flowing stream that proceeds from the throne of God, the water of the river of life (Letter 87, 1894). {7BC 948.1}

With His own blood He paid the penalty for all wrongdoers. (RH Sept. 29, 1896).

The penalty for breaking the law of God is proportionate to the price paid to redeem its transgressors. {FLB 354.5}

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}

Prayer is not an expiation for sin. It is not a penance. We need not come to God as condemned criminals, for Christ has paid the penalty of our transgression. He has made an atonement for us. His blood cleanses from sin. {HP 71.2}

In His own body He paid the penalty of that on which the power of Satan over humanity is founded--sin (YI June 28, 1900). {7BC 924.5}

Here is the answer:

Through disobedience Adam fell. The law of God had been broken. The divine government had been dishonored, and justice demanded that the penalty of transgression be paid. To save the race from eternal death, the Son of God volunteered to bear the punishment of disobedience. Only by the humiliation of the Prince of heaven could the dishonor be removed, justice be satisfied, and man be restored to that which he had forfeited by disobedience. There was no other way. {1SM 308.1, 2}

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}

Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment. {PP 358.2}

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." {FW 93.3}

By faith in His merits I am free from the condemnation of the law. He clothes me with His righteousness, which answers all the demands of the law. {NL 27.2}

He was the surety for man, the ambassador for God--the surety for man to satisfy by His righteousness in man's behalf the demands of the law, and the representative of God to make manifest His character to a fallen race. {1SM 257.2}

The active obedience of Christ clothes the believing sinner with the righteousness that meets the demands of the law. {SD 240.4}

His faith may unite him in his weakness to Christ, the source of divine strength, and through the merits of Christ he may find the approval of God, because Christ has satisfied the demands of the law, and He imputes His righteousness to the penitent, believing soul. {TMK 96.3}

Here's something from Fifield:



The last paragraph gets to the key point.

Here's a statement from Ellen White which brings out the same point:



Justice would not be served, the demands of the law would not be met, had a pardon been effected which simply led to sin being perpetuated. Without the death of Christ, sin would not have come to an end.

That this is not an arbitrary requirement, something which God needed, is evident from the fact that God offered to pardon Lucifer "again and again." Had the death of Christ been necessary for God, in order for Him to legally pardon, then it would have been necessary in order for Him to pardon Lucifer as well.

Fifield's explanation makes perfect sense to me, and seems to be in harmony with Ellen White's quote above, which also makes sense to me. We see that pardon, without the death of Christ, was not enough because it would have led to sin being perpetuated. This would neither have met the demands of the law, nor satisfied justice.

TE: We see that pardon, without the death of Christ, was not enough because it would have led to sin being perpetuated. This would neither have met the demands of the law, nor satisfied justice.

MM: Law and justice demand not merely pardon for sinning or cessation of sinning; it demands death for the sins already committed. Pardon and not sinning any more do not meet the demands of the law or satisfy justice. Law and justice were violated. Someone must die in consequence of the sins committed.

"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}

"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 aplan 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}

I can't see how what you're suggesting can be right, MM, because if this were the case, then how could Ellen White have written that God offered Lucifer pardon "again and again"? It seems to me that God would have been just as constrained to insist upon Christ's death for Lucifer as for man, if what you're suggesting here were true.

Lucifer had sinned, and was given the opportunity to confess his sin. Had he confessed his sin, he would have been restored to his position, and forgiven. There would have been no death.

It is sin that results in death. Ellen White points out that without the death of Christ, sin would have been perpetuated. This means that man would have inevitably died. The only way for man to be saved was for Christ to die. Christ suffered the death that was ours that we might live His life. That's it in a nutshell. This is substitutionary atonement. I see no need to go beyond this simple and eloquent statement of hers. I see her in no place suggesting that Christ died in order to give God the legal right to pardon us.

I would point you to Fifield's comments in the post just above yours that I am responding to here. I think he hit the nail on the head.

Where is there anything here that says that Christ had to die in order for God to have the legal right to pardon us? All these quotes speak of the price that Christ paid. For example:



What was the price paid for? So that God could have the legal right to forgive us? No, it was the "price of our redemption."

Romans Chapter 3
"23": For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
"24": Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
"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;
"26": To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


This text makes it quite clear that the Cross is a crucial part of God being able to forgive sinners while remaining just in doing so. Without the propitiating sacrifice of Christ, God's forgiveness could accomplish nothing more than an eternal perpetuation of sin.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Dave. I agree with the words that you wrote. Here is what I would mean by your words:

If God merely pardoned sin without doing something to cause sin to stop, then that would not be just. Without the death of Christ, man would have just kept sinning, resulting in the perpetuation of sin.

As Fifield said:



This is what I understand Paul to be saying as well.

What Paul is saying is that through the Cross, God has the legal right to forgive us of our sins. Without the Cross, the legal right would have to have been achieved though altering the law which would be altering His character of divine love.

Regarding the situation as it pertained to Lucifer in heaven, we are not necessarily given all the details of the provision God offered to Satan or the exact nature of his rejection of that provision. What is certain, though, is that Satan had the nature of God's law explained to him and when he yet rebelled, his sin had matured, and there was no remedy for him.

On the first question regarding what Paul said, he didn't say that God has the legal right to forgive us our sins through the cross. This idea didn't even exist at the time Paul wrote. It wasn't until many, many centuries later that this idea was first articulated.

That Paul did not have this idea can be seen in a couple of ways. First of all, Paul was not inventing a new theology. He was explaining the meaning of Christ's death according to the sacrificial system already in place, according to how sacrifice was understood. There is no contemporaneous evidence that any civilization at the time of Paul, including the Hebrews, had the idea that sacrifice was for the purpose of the Deity obtaining a legal right to forgive. This isn't a Jewish idea.

Secondly, the Eastern Orthodox church does not have this idea of the atonement. Why not? Because they split off from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm, who first enunciated the precursor to this idea. Here's a web site that has an interesting article on this: http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/whats-at-stake-in-the-atonement/

Has this idea been in existence at the time Paul wrote, it would have become a part of the patristic beliefs. But this idea of Christ's death is not mentioned in the early creeds or writings of the fathers.

Another point is that, as stated above, Paul did not create new theology, but explicated the theology of Jesus Christ. What Paul writes on the meaning of the death of Christ, one should be able to find in the life and teachings of Jesus. But Jesus new taught that God did not have the legal right to forgive us, and that only His death would give God that right.

Finally, in regards to Paul, Paul does not say that Christ's death gave God the legal right for forgive us. He says that God set Christ forth as a, literally, "mercy seat," for our sins, to declare (or manifest) His righteousness (or justice) that He might be just and the justifier of the believer in Jesus Christ.

In regards to Lucifer, we are given a lot of details, quite a number of pages. We are told specifically what the conditions of the offer of pardon were: repentance and submission. We are told that Lucifer was offered pardon "again and again." We know, in actual fact, that God made this offer many times, and that Christ did not die in order for God to be able to make the offer. This proves that Christ's death is not necessary in order to provide a legal right for God to pardon, as if this were the case, God couldn't have offered to pardon Lucifer.

I agree with the content of your last sentence, but would say that it is no more certain than the fact that Lucifer was offered pardon again and again without Christ's having had to die in order to give God the legal right to do so, since we have as much information on the latter as we do on the former.

Tom, the quotes (all of them) speak for themselves. Law and justice demand death for sin. Jesus' death satifies the demands of law and justice. It gives God the legal right to pardon repentant sinners.

MM, I see a lot of statements, but not one that says that God needed a legal right to pardon. The whole concept doesn't make sense. How did God lose the legal right He had to pardon?

Let's think this through a bit. God, being God, has, by virtue of being the creator, the legal right to pardon any of His subjects, right? So if you say that God was dependent upon Christ's death in order to obtain the legal right to pardon, this must mean that somehow He lost the legal right He already had. How did He lose this right?



Waggoner explains these things so well. It's no wonder Ellen White recommended him so highly.

As Waggoner points out, God has the right to forgive whom He will. Waggoner's quote also addresses the issue of justice.

Finally, we know that God offered Lucifer pardon, without anyone dying, so He evidently had the legal right to pardon all along.

Your private interpretation of Sister White's comments regarding Lucifer have no weight with me. It doesn't prove a thing. And yet you keep citing it as if it were a foregone conclusion. But it isn't. She says nothing of the sort.

God's rule is not arbitrary. It is based on law and justice. He is just as obligated as the rest of us to act accordingly. He lost the right to continue blessing us with eternal life the moment we sinned. He lost it to law and justice. He earned it back through the life and death of Jesus.

It would be nice if her statement carried weight with you.



Here's what she said:



That's clear enough.



This isn't true. God is not obligated by anything or anyone. The law is a transcript of God's character. It describes what God is like. It is not greater than God, something to which He is demanded to serve.



If God lost a right to something else, than that thing He lost the right to is greater than God.

The quote you posted does not support your conclusion.

And, since God does nothing contrary to His will and way, He owes it to law and justice to pay our sin debt of death. According to His will and way, sinners must be punished and destroyed. That's the law; that's justice; that's the way it is.

The only way around law and justice, that is, the only way God can save sinners from death is through allowing Jesus to suffer and die in their place. Either the sinner or the divine substitute must suffer punishment and death proportionate to sin.

You'd have to specify what you're talking about here, since you didn't quote anything by me. The conclusion I was trying to prove the quote is that God offered Lucifer pardon many times, and Christ had not died. That follows from the quote, doesn't it?



I don't have a problem with God's paying our debt. I wouldn't say that He does to because He owes it to law and justice though. How can God be a debtor?



This is I think where the fundamental different lies between our views. You see that God arbitrarily punishes and destroys sinners, as evidenced by your statement "that's the way it is." There's no reason why God should do so. It's the law; it's justice; but why? There's no reason. Simply "that's the way it is."

OTOH I believe that sin results in death. Sinners die because they sin. As God warned Adam and Eve, if they sinned, they would die. The warning is not "if you sin, I will kill you" or "if you sin, I will punish and destroy you" but "if you sin, you will die."

There's a vast difference in how these two views formulate our mental image of God. Under one view, God is One to be feared. It's God's way or the high way, or, more accurately, God's way or be burned alive for as long as God sees fit, and then killed. Under another view, God is working to rescue us from the death which sin inflicts.



I agree with this statement, although I wouldn't say "the only way around law and justice" but rather "the only way to be just and fulfill what the law requires ...". To say "the only around the law and justice" implies the law and justice are being avoided.



This is true, but not arbitrarily so, but for a specific reason. That is:



MM, you haven't dealt in any of your posts with what I see to be the real difficulties of the position you are taking. I'll list some problems:

a)Your position makes God a debtor. You say things like God owed things to law and justice, and that God had to obtain a legal right. How could God lose any rights? How can God be a debtor?

b)Your position makes God dependent upon violence in order to solve the problem of sin. God has to kill His Son (I think you agree with this idea; if not, please correct me) or, at the very least, God is dependent upon His Son being killed in order for Him to be able to legally pardon.

There's a big philosophical problem here. Jesus Christ revealed a God who is completely non-violent, or, more accurately, anti-violent. Rather than commit violence, Jesus Christ went to the most violent of deaths. When urged to use violence, Jesus Christ responded "you know not of what spirit you are."

Force, of which violence is the most brutal type, is not a principle of God's government. Violence is utterly contrary to God's character. It's a principle of the ways of the enemy. It (actually force, but most commonly in the form of violence) is that last resort of every false religion. How can God be dependent upon a principle which is not to be found in His kingdom in order to establish His kingdom?

c)You cannot produce anything from Jesus' life or teachings which corroborate your ideas, most specifically the idea that God was dependent upon the death of Jesus in order to obtain the legal right to pardon us. Where did Jesus teach this?

d)The theory of the atonement you suggest did not exist until many centuries after the NT was written. Evidence of this the Eastern Orthodox church does not have this view of the atonement. Why not? Because they split from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm came around.

I'd be very interested in seeing you deal with these points.

Pardon for willful sin was not available to Lucifer. The moment he became guilty of willfully sinning he was beyond hope. God offered to pardon and reinstate Lucifer before he was guilty of sinning. Such pardon did not infer sinning.

Punishing and destroying sinners is not a form of violence. It is law and justice. The Flood was not violence. The fires of Sodom was not violence. When Jesus gives Satan permission to detroy sinners it is not violence.

God owes it to law and justice to pay our sin debt of death. He cannot simply pardon and save sinners. He is indebted to law and justice to punish and destroy sinners. It is His character. It is how He established things. If death were the natural consequences of sinning there would be no need of a second resurrection or a lake of fire.

Jesus established the principles of atonement. He did not change it while He was here in the flesh. Yes, His death on the cross impresses us with His love, it motivates us to serve Him without sinning. However, there is more to it. Law and justice requires that sinners be not merely pardoned. Death must come in consequence of man's sin.

Evidently, until Lucifer made his final decision not to repent, pardon *was* available to Lucifer, since God offered him pardon "again and again."



This makes no sense. One only needs pardon for sin. Your idea would have God offering to pardon Lucifer as long as he didn't need it, but as soon as he did, He doesn't offer it. That wouldn't be very nice, would it?



You mean "imply" sinning. Of course it does. Lucifer was offered pardon on the condition of repentance and submission. Why would he need to repent if he had done nothing wrong?

Besides, in addition to offering Lucifer pardon, we have the record of what Lucifer did, which included "aspiring to be equal with God" (breaking the first commandment) and seeking to misrepresent God by "lying representations" (breaking the ninth), to name just two things. Also, EGW describes Lucifer's actions as "transgression" "evil" "iniquity" and "sin," and I'm speaking specifically of the time before Lucifer made his final decision not to repent.



Regarding what violence is, it is defined as



This is from Webster's, from which I chose the most general definition. Clearly the acts you are attributing to God were violent acts.

Was the cross violent?



This is exactly my point. No contemporary offerer of sacrifice had in mind the principles you are espousing. Christ would have had to have changed them in order for what you are asserting to be true.



Death did come as a consequence of man's sin. Jesus died by way of man's sin. That did happen. However, this death conferred to God no new rights. Where did Jesus suggest such a thing? (Or anyone else?)

God did not offer to pardon Lucifer whle he was guilty of willfully sinning. Nothing you can quote will support your assumption.

Justice is not violence. The Flood, Sodom, etc, were justice, not violence. The way God treated Jesus on the cross was not violence. It was justice.

"Death did come as a consequence of man's sin. Jesus died by way of man's sin. That did happen." Why? You seem to believe it was necessary only to impress us with His love, to motivate us to obey Him. Whereas, I believe it also was required by law and justice to satisfy the death penalty established by God.

Only, as far as I can tell, because you refuse to believe this, regardless of what is quoted. I mean, if you just look at the following:



It's beyond me how anyone could read this and not see that Lucifer was willfully sinning here. Let's just consider the underlined parts. First of all we see that Lucifer was hiding his true purpose. Why? Because he didn't want his would be followers to know what he was really up to. Look at the last underlined part. He claimed he was not aiming at self-exaltation, but he was.

Here we see Lucifer was aiming to exalt himself, devised a plan to accomplish this, carried out the plan, and lied about what he was doing! I feel confident you could show this paragraph to any non-SDA Christian (or any SDA who didn't have an ax to grind) and they would see that Lucifer is willfully sinning here. Really, it makes me wonder what EGW could have described Lucifer as doing that you would perceive to be willfully sinning.

It doesn't appear to me that the record of Lucifer's behavior is what has you convinced that he wasn't willfully sinning, but your own preconceived idea. One should be careful to allow the evidence to shape one's opinion, rather than forcing the evidence to face one's opinion.



That's true!



I agree with these statements, because God did nothing violent. That is, God did none of the violent things you think He did. Everything He did was as non-violent as the things Jesus did in the flesh.

I'm particularly curious as to what you had in mind by "the way that God treated Christ". How do you perceive that God treated Christ? I perceive that God permitted certain things to happen to His Son. Do you see God as actively doing something that would ordinarily be classified as "violent" (if it weren't God doing it) towards His Son?



According to Acts 2:23 (other places as well) it happened because wicked men crucified Him.



The particular issue I've been discussing is that you think it was necessary in order for God to obtain the legal right to pardon. Where is this asserted in inspiration? In particular, where did Jesus teach an idea like this?

Your first sentence is not at all what I believe, by the way. There are many things which Jesus' death accomplished, one of which was the revelation of God's love and character. I'm not asserting this is the only thing that happened, but that what you are asserting, that it was necessary in order for God to obtain the legal right to pardon, was not a reason Christ's death was necessary.

Our heavenly Fatehr treated Jesus on the cross like a sinner, like someone who committed all the sins of the world. The fact humans and evil angels were tormenting Him paled in comparison.

THe death of Jesus was required for more reasons than merely to motivate us to love and obey God. It was also required to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. The honor of God's law must be served. The law requires death for sin. Sinners cannot be merely pardoned. Death must occur in consequence of man's sin. Jesus paid our sin debt of death to satisfy the law, to uphold the integrity of the law, to preserve law and justice.

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}

RH 3-3-1874
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 of superior value to the law of God. In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die." 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. {RH, March 3, 1874 par. 1}

What do you mean by this? You've said elsewhere that Christ's death was unlike the death of sinners, which would imply that God did *not* treat Christ like a sinner, wouldn't it?



Wow! What angels and men were doing to Christ pale in comparison to what God was doing to Him? Wow! Sort of makes God seem like a monster, doesn't it? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here(?). I certainly hope so).



Yes, I said that. (except I didn't use the phrase "required for," but I communicated the idea that Jesus' death accomplished much more than motivate us to love and obey God. For one thing, it won the Great Controversy; that's an important thing).



This isn't really communicating anything to me. It just sounds like familiar phrases. Could you say the same thing in other words? For example, the law doesn't require anything that God doesn't require, does it? That is, the law has no independent existence apart from God. So couldn't you just say that God requires death for sin? That wouldn't mean anything different, would it? So "Jesus paid our sin debt of death to satisfy the law" means "Jesus paid our sin debt of death to satisfy God," doesn't it?


P.S.

And aren't we back to the same question about Lucifer? If Eve's sin required Christ's death, then Lucifer's sins should have as well. Look at what Eve did; she ate an apple, because she was deceived. You claim that Lucifer did not willfully sin because he didn't know what he was doing was wrong (in spite of the fact that evidence indicates he did know; for example, he disguised his true intentions, which indicates he knew he was doing wrong), but there is no doubt that Eve did not know what she was doing was wrong. In the words of Paul, she was deceived. Yet her sin resulted in the death of Christ. That's correct, isn't it? So why hers, but not Lucifer's?

You can't say Lucifer didn't sin because, in addition to EGW's calling Lucifer's actions "evil," "iniquity," and "transgression," and in addition to the description itself being obviously sin, and in addition to the fact she wrote that God offered Lucifer pardon "again and again," and in addition to the fact that repentance was a required condition for that pardon, she *also* stated that Lucifer was given the opportunity to "confess his sin." Now if he was given the opportunity to "confess his sin," he obviously had sin to confess.

Since he had the opportunity to confess it, at least that sin Lucifer could have been pardoned for. Yet Christ had not died. How is this possible?

Jesus was not treated like a sinner in the lake of fire. He was treated like a sinner on the cross. He "felt" the wrath and displeasure of God. This was more devastating to Jesus than the treatment He received from men and evil angels. There is nothing monstrous about it.

God established the law to be an unbiased advocate of law and justice. Yes, it is a transcript of His character. But He is obligated to obey it the same as us. Which is not a problem for Him. The law demands death for sin. God is obligated to abide by this law. He cannot pardon us without death and hope to maintain law and order.

The difference between Lucifer and Eve should be obvious. She was an inexperienced underling, he was the highest ranking covering cherub. She was barely familiar with the law of God, he knew the law and character of God perfectly. She was instructed concerning sin and rebellion, he was totally unfamiliar with sin adn rebellion. She was deceived into sinning, he willfully chose to live a life of sin kicking against a pricking conscience.

Lucifer's behavior was not labeled "sin" until the moment he chose to pursue his course beyond being convicted otherwise. It was a perfectly sinless being who experimented with the new and strange thoughts and feelings that were on his mind. His tactics and manners were designed to understand his new and strange thoughs and feelings. He was not guilty of sinning until the moment he chose to pursue his course further after being convinced to do so would be sinful.

If you prefer "devastating" that's fine. It is your position that God's treatment of Jesus was so devastating to Jesus that the tormenting of Him by evil angels and men pales in comparison. It's nothing less than tragic that you have this view of God.

God is like Jesus Christ. Where did Jesus Christ ever treat anybody in the manner you are suggesting God treated Christ?

In reality, God suffered with Christ. God was crucified with Christ. God left heaven, shrouding His glory, to be close to Jesus in His hour of suffering. God was never closer to Jesus than at His death.




God established the law to be an unbiased advocate of law? That sounds pretty biased!



Not as an arbitrary requirement. It's a statement of fact that sin results in death, not an arbitrarily imposed penalty.



How can God's law be greater than He is? God is not obligated to anything or anybody. God is not a debtor.



This is true.



Right. In addition, Lucifer was vastly more intelligent, and dwelt in the very presence of God, all of which brings out that Lucifer was much guiltier for his actions than Eve. Yet God was willing to pardon Lucifer.



You think Eve was more familiar with sin and rebellion than Lucifer?!

Lucifer was instructed concerning sin and rebellion as well, by Christ personally, and was in much better position to understand the warning God was giving to him than Eve. In fact, Lucifer did understand the warning, but he chose to disregard it. Lucifer was not deceived. He sinned willingly.



Right! Lucifer's sin was willful. He willfully rejected the pardon that God kept offering him "again and again." He chose to kick against his pricking conscience.



When Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess his sin, he had sin to confess, right? So there's a chronology:

a)Lucifer sins.
b)Lucifer is given the opportunity to confess his sin, in which case he would have been pardoned and restored to his position as covering cherub.
c)Lucifer refuses to confess, and continues in rebellion.

However you want to consider this period of sin to consist of, there's no doubt it is more serious than what Eve did, correct? I suppose I should ask you what you think the sin was that Lucifer was given the chance to confess was.





Satan was not innocent in his behavior. He was not offered pardon "again and again" because he was acting innocently. He was offered pardon because God is merciful.

It's interesting to note that your ideas lead you to defend Satan's actions as simply experimenting with strange thoughts and feelings.

You have God guilty of treating His Son so devastatingly that the tormenting of evil angels and men pales in comparison, but Lucifer innocent of his actions, which were simply experiments with strange thoughts and feelings.

Have you never read where Jesus' physical suffering paled in comparison to the mental anguish He felt on the cross? What was the source of such suffering? It was the wrath and displeasure of God!

Initially Lucifer did not understand sin and rebellion. It was foreign and unknown. The methods and tactics he used to explore his new and strange thoughts and feelings were designed to unmask a mystery. God gave him the freedom to figure it out.

The fact He was willing to pardon and reinstate him on condition of repentance and submission is evidence he had not violated any laws. He was not guilty of sinning. His behaviour was within the rules of - Come now, let us reason together.

He was not guilty of sinning until the moment he was convinced his conclusions about God were wrong and he chose to pursue his course at all hazards.

No, that's not correct. The source was Christ's *sense* of God's displeasure. Every place where Ellen White speaks of this you will see this is what she says. God was *never* displeased with His Son.



This is a made up idea of yours. There's not a shred of evidence to support this idea. Nowhere does she write that Lucifer was "exploring" his new and strange thoughts and feelings.

Here's what she says:





What was Lucifer's "real purpose," a purpose he was "concealing" under "an appearance of reverence for God"? It was self-exaltation.

His represented himself as desiring to revere God and not wanting to exalt himself when his real purpose was to exalt himself. He sought to win homage for himself, resorting to "lying representation" in order to do so.

To excuse this as exploring new and strange thoughts is unconscionable.



Like if a governor of a state is willing to pardon someone? If the governor of your state offers to pardon someone, then that is evidence that the person being pardoned didn't violate any laws?

You're saying things the opposite of which are true. That pardon was offered, and repentance required, is, of course, evidence that sin had been committed. Anyone can see that.

God offered to restore Lucifer if he confessed his sin, correct? So even if you want to excuse Lucifer's actions cited above of seeking to exalt himself, hiding his real purpose under a guise of reverence for God as innocent experimentations, there is still the fact that Lucifer committed sin which he was given the opportunity to confess.

Regardless of what you limit this sin to, it's still there. We have.

a)Lucifer committed sin (the sin he was given the opportunity to confess).
b)Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess that sin.
c)Had he done so, he would have been restored to his position.

Here is what Sister White wrote about Jesus' experience on the cross:


Jesus "sensed" His Father wrath and displeasure for the simple reason He became sin itself for us. The sins of the world were laid upon Him. He was counted as the one who committed them. He suffered the curse of the law, the penalty of death. He endured judicial punishment.

In the keenest sense He felt the wrath of God because of iniquity. It filled His soul with consternation. God did not pretend to pour out His wrath upon Jesus. It was real. Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race. The cup He drank was bitter beyond belief.

Here is what Sister White wrote about Lucifer:


This description confirms what I posted above.

You're just repeating familiar phrases. There's no meaning here.

Christ's sensed His Father's wrath because sin causes us to believe things about God that aren't true. This is precisely what happened to Adam and Eve. They ran and hid from God, but God wasn't angry at them, as He wasn't angry at Christ.

He left heaven to be with Christ. He loved His Son, and suffered with Him. He did nothing bad to Christ.



This is true.



This is true too. God didn't pretend to pour out His wrath upon Christ, nor pour it out upon Christ at all. As Waggoner pointed out.



And this is true. Nowhere in Scripture suggests this, and no Scriptural texts have been suggested. Waggoner, of whom Ellen White wrote, "he can teach righteousness by faith better than I can" is correct.



Here you're contradicting yourself, because you say Christ's death was not like the death of the wicked at the end of time.

Anyway, it's true that Christ will feel the anguish the wicked will feel, and the reason for this anguish is because of sin, not because of God.

Sin is the enemy, not God. God doesn't change. He is love personified, forgiveness personified. But sin causes us to view God in ways He is not.

God is like Jesus Christ. When Christ pleaded "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," He was revealing the character of God. God forgives freely. Just as Christ needed no payment in order to forgive the paralytic, nor the woman caught in adultery, nor the wretches torturing him, neither does God, whose character Christ was revealing, need to be bought off in order to pardon us.

No, not really. It agrees with what I said. It says that Lucifer became convinced that he had done wrong, which is what I was saying. You said that he was experimenting with strange feelings and thoughts, but she says he did wrong, which is what I said.

TE: Christ's sensed His Father's wrath because sin causes us to believe things about God that aren't true.

MM: Are you sure Jesus believed untrue things about God on the cross?

---

TE: God didn't pretend to pour out His wrath upon Christ, nor pour it out upon Christ at all.

MM: "It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon Him as man's substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God." Jesus became sin itself. Note the following inspired insight:

To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. {DA 107.4}

---

TE: "The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible." And this is true.

MM: I agree. It is law and justice that must be satisfied - not God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit worked together to make atonement for mankind, to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. "Christ's keenest anguish was a sense of His Father's displeasure." This sense was real, not pretended or imagined.

---

TE: Here you're contradicting yourself, because you say Christ's death was not like the death of the wicked at the end of time.

MM: Tom, please listen carefully. Jesus did not die in the lake of fire like a sinner. Nevertheless, He "felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race." Do you see the differences and the similarities?

1.Ps. 21 describes the ordeal that Christ went through. He was tempted to believe things about God that aren't true, as sin has this impact upon us, as we see in Adam and Eve, but His faith held firm. He chose to believe what He knew to be true about God rather than rely upon His feelings.

2.Are you thinking of 2 Cor. 5:21 when you write "Jesus became sin itself for us"? Would you please explain your meaning here.

3.Your statement that it is the law and justice that must be satisfied, rather than God, is incomprehensible. Perhaps you could explain your meaning in some other way that I can understand what you're trying to say. "Law" and "justice" are concepts. They are not beings. You're speaking as if they were actual creatures.

4.It seems to me you say that Christ's death was unlike the wickeds', and then, on the other, you, you point out that Christ suffered the same thing the wicked will suffer.

Getting back to the subject of the topic, and Waggoner's statement, are you saying you agree with Waggoner's statement?

TE: He was tempted to believe things about God that aren't true, as sin has this impact upon us ...

MM: Earlier you wrote, "Christ's sensed His Father's wrath because sin causes us to believe things about God that aren't true." Have you changed your mind? Did sin cause Jesus to believe untrue things about God, or did sin tempt Him to believe untrue things about God?

---

TE: Are you thinking of 2 Cor. 5:21 when you write "Jesus became sin itself for us"?

MM: No. I was referring to the quote I posted on the previous page. "He, the sin-bearer, endures judicial punishment for iniquity and becomes sin itself for man." {SR 225.1} I also posted, "It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon Him as man's substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God."

She says, the wrath of God was upon Jesus, who became sin itself for us. Jesus identified Himself with sin, and to sin, wherever found, our God is a consuming fire. The glory of God, which destroys sin, affected Jesus, because He became sin itself. The glory of God affected Jesus like sin because He became sin itself.

DA 107
To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. {DA 107.4}

---

TE: Your statement that it is the law and justice that must be satisfied, rather than God, is incomprehensible.

MM: It was Sister White who personified law and justice. Here is how she put it:


Note the way she compares how Jesus and Satan both pay the penalty of law and justice as it relates to our sins. Jesus paid part of it and Satan will pay the rest of it. Between the two the "full penalty" is paid.

---

TE: It seems to me you say that Christ's death was unlike the wickeds', and then, on the other, you, you point out that Christ suffered the same thing the wicked will suffer.

MM: Sort of. The wicked will suffer in the lake of fire. Jesus did not. The wicked suffer in proportion to their own sinfulness. Jesus, on the other hand, suffered for all the sins of the world. Do you agree with these distinctions?

---

TE: Getting back to the subject of the topic, and Waggoner's statement, are you saying you agree with Waggoner's statement?

MM: Waggoner wrote, "The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible."

Law and justice must be satisfied in order that God may be just and yet the justifier of those who have sinned and repented. It has nothing to do with appeasing or propitiating God's wrath. The wrath of God comes in later on, after sinners have rejected the sacrifice of Jesus that gives God the legal right to pardon repentant sinners.

I gave the example of Adam and Eve in the garden. They fled from God, in terror, even thought God was not angry at them, and God had not changed. Why? Because of the impact that sin had on their mind.

In the case of Christ, Christ felt certain things, as brought out by Psalm 22. However, Christ remained faithful. By faith, Christ was victorious, choosing to believe what He knew to be true about God in spite of what He felt.

Sin causes *us* to believe things about God that are not true, and tempted Christ to do likewise. Although He overcame, He still felt and sensed certain negative things, such as being abandoned by God. But God did not abandon Christ.

---



Christ didn't literally become sin. She explained what she meant:



Please don't try to have her say something she had no intention of saying. She explained her meaning.

Christ did not metamorphosize into sin. He remained a human being. He suffered because of our sins.



When you quote something like this without any comment, I'm left to guess as to what your point is.

This is a paragraph I've quoted to you many times, so I'm, of course, well acquainted with it. The glory of God is His character. Those who cling to sin are unable to bear the brightness, the beauty, of God's character. You seem to be wanting to apply this to Christ(?). What's your idea?



---



She never wrote anything like what you wrote, which is to say, like this:



The law is an transcript of God's character. It is not a being with a mind that has a will. To personalize the law, or justice, is to make comments about God. It's astounding to me that you wouldn't understand that. I cannot even conceive as to what your thinking is, because the statement that "It is law and justice that must be satisfied - not God." is incomprehensible to me. Of course it is God who is satisfied. He is satisfied by justice; He is satisfied that the law is upheld.



The issue has to do with the consequences of one's actions, and being restored and redeemed by the sacrifice of another. The punishment that Satan undergoes can't bad added to Christ's work. The work of Satan and the work of Christ are totally different.

---



You quoted DA 107, which has to do with the lake of fire, as applying to Jesus Christ. At least, that's what it looked to me that you were doing. I'm really not understanding what you're tying to say.

Here's something that might be helpful. Lay out what you see to be the problem that man had, that the universe had, how it came about, and how the problem is solved by Jesus Christ.

---



You are saying that God's wrath was *not* involved on the cross, that God's wrath doesn't come in until later on?

You have yet to present any Scriptural evidence whatsoever, not so much as a single verse, that God needed the sacrifice of Jesus in order to have the legal right to pardon.

Why wouldn't God have the legal right to pardon simply by virture of being God? As Waggoner points out, God has the right to forgive whoever He wants, since He is the one that was sinned against. He doesn't need Christ for that.

*We* need Christ!

TE: Sin causes *us* to believe things about God that are not true, and tempted Christ to do likewise.

MM: Was it sin or Satan that tempted Jesus on the cross to believe untrue things about His Father?

---

TE: Christ didn't literally become sin. Christ did not metamorphosize into sin. He remained a human being.

MM: Paul wrote, "For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." And Sister White says, "He, the sin-bearer, endures judicial punishment for iniquity and becomes sin itself for man."

We can change the obvious meaning of these inspired passages if we want to; but the nice thing about it is we don't have to. It is our duty and privilege to take God at His word. Jesus so thoroughly identified Himself with the sins of the world that He became sin itself.

In the same way, when we thoroughly identify ourselves with Jesus we become righteousness itself. In Christ, we are "made the righteousness of God." We must avoid being deceived on this point. As it is written:

1 John
3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Without a host sin ceases to be sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. That is what Jesus became when God heaped upon Him the sins of the world. Jesus was more than a human on the cross, He became sin itself. He became the transgression of God's law.

---

DA 107
To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. {DA 107.4}

TE: Those who cling to sin are unable to bear the brightness, the beauty, of God's character. You seem to be wanting to apply this to Christ(?). What's your idea?

MM: The brightness of God's glory consumes sin wherever it is found - even if it is Jesus. He so thoroughly identified Himself with sin that He became sin itself. Therefore, the glory of God, which destroys sin, destroyed Jesus.

---

TE: I cannot even conceive as to what your thinking is, because the statement that "It is law and justice that must be satisfied - not God." is incomprehensible to me.

MM: I was responding to the Waggoner quote you posted - "The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible." What I meant to say was, It is law and justice that must be satisfied, not the wrath of God. I explained it more fully at the end of the my last post. Sorry for the confusion.

---

TE: The punishment that Satan undergoes can't bad added to Christ's work. The work of Satan and the work of Christ are totally different.

MM: True. Jesus died for our sins; Satan will die with our sins. Both are necessary to fully satisfy law and justice, to fully pay the penalty of transgressing the law. Concerning the death of Satan in the lake of fire, she says, "The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met ...." The death of Satan with our sins is just as necessary to satisfy law and justice as was Jesus' death for our sins.

---

TE: It seems to me you say that Christ's death was unlike the wickeds', and then, on the other, you, you point out that Christ suffered the same thing the wicked will suffer.

MM: Sort of. The wicked will suffer in the lake of fire. Jesus did not. The wicked suffer in proportion to their own sinfulness. Jesus, on the other hand, suffered for all the sins of the world. Do you agree with these distinctions?

TE: You quoted DA 107, which has to do with the lake of fire, as applying to Jesus Christ. At least, that's what it looked to me that you were doing. I'm really not understanding what you're tying to say.

MM: Actually, here's what I wrote:

Tom, please listen carefully. Jesus did not die in the lake of fire like a sinner. Nevertheless, He "felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race." Do you see the differences and the similarities? (94024)

---

TE: You are saying that God's wrath was *not* involved on the cross, that God's wrath doesn't come in until later on?

MM: No, that's not what I meant. I was addressing the Waggoner quote. It was an angel who said, "The soul that sinneth it shall die an everlasting death - a death that will last forever, from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased." {EW 51.2}

The appeasement of God's wrath will not occur until sin, in the form of unsaved sinners, is destroyed in the lake of fire. Jesus tasted and consumed this wrath for us on the cross, and Satan and unsaved sinners will exhaust God's wrath by being consumed with sin in the lake of fire.

---

TE: You have yet to present any Scriptural evidence whatsoever, not so much as a single verse, that God needed the sacrifice of Jesus in order to have the legal right to pardon.

MM: You have rejected the verses and evidence presented in support of the truth.

---

TE: Why wouldn't God have the legal right to pardon simply by virture of being God?

MM: Because He established law and justice as unbiased judges, which were based on His very own character. He will do nothing contrary to His character, contrary to law and justice, which require Him to punish and destroy sinners the instant they sin.

---

TE: *We* need Christ!

MM: Amen! And so did God since it was His great desire to save us from eternal death. Law and justice demand death for sin, either sinners must die, or the Son of God must die in their place. Either way, someone must die eternally for and with the sins we commit. It was Jesus who died for the sins of the world. Sinners, therefore, cannot die for their sins.

In the case of unsaved sinners, they will die eternally in the lake of fire with the sins they themselves committed. In the case of saved sinners, Satan will die eternally in the lake of fire with the sins they committed and with the sins which he himself committed.

Hmm, I read that the early christians thought that what Jesus accomplished at the cross was the defeat of the devil or alternatively the dismissal of the devils claims on this earth. This either by paying a ransom or by trapping the devil into orchestrating the crusifixion and thereby making himself persona non grata in heaven.

I wonder if there is not some truth to be learned from this approach aswell as there is some truth to be gained from Anselms view.

In John Stott's "the Cross of Christ", he presents this as a conflict within God. God's holiness cannot bear the presence of sin. God's love cannot bear the absence of the human race He created. So there is a conflict between God's holiness and God's love that must be reconsiled, which was somehow accomplished on the cross.

Jesus asked God three times in the garden of Getsemane to not have to go through with the cross. After this prayertime, Jesus was content that the will of God, which lead to the cross, was where He should go and thus He went. If the cross had not been part of God's plan for Jesus, God would have informed about this no later than at the garden and Jesus would have gone the other way out from there.

There's a lot to be learned from the first view, which is called "Christus Victor." MM had a nice quote expressing the thought from the Spirit of Prophecy.



I think Anselm's idea is just wrong. The sacrifice of Christ was not motivated by God's needing to reestablish His honor, at least not in the sense that Anselm was arguing.

I do think Anselm was correct in asserting that something objective happened by Christ's sacrifice though. It wasn't purely subjective, as Abelgard was saying.

Christus Victor addresses this, which I pointed out earlier in this thread, I'm pretty sure. I can repost the thought, if desired.

It's not that the cross was "God's plan for Jesus," but there simply was no other way by which Christ could accomplish His mission than by the cross. IOW, God, just as much as Jesus, would have wished for some other way to reconcile man, but there wasn't one.

Regarding a conflict within God, I think the conflict was whether or not to give His Son for a rebellious race. Christ's sacrifice did not change God in any way. It did not affect how God's attitude toward sin or sinners. The cross *reveals* God's hatred of sin, and His love for sinners.

God can no more tolerate sin before the cross than after.

TE: Sin causes *us* to believe things about God that are not true, and tempted Christ to do likewise.

MM: Was it sin or Satan that tempted Jesus on the cross to believe untrue things about His Father?

Yes.

---

TE: Christ didn't literally become sin. Christ did not metamorphosize into sin. He remained a human being.

MM: Paul wrote, "For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." And Sister White says, "He, the sin-bearer, endures judicial punishment for iniquity and becomes sin itself for man."

Right. The question is, what did Paul, or Sister White, mean when they wrote these things?

We can change the obvious meaning of these inspired passages if we want to; but the nice thing about it is we don't have to.

Yes, it's nice that we have the option of believing what the original authors intended, instead of substituting our own theories, isn't it?

Is this sort of thing helpful to point out, MM?

It is our duty and privilege to take God at His word. Jesus so thoroughly identified Himself with the sins of the world that He became sin itself.

You are saying that Christ metamorphasized into sin? He ceased being a human being, and became sin instead?

In the same way, when we thoroughly identify ourselves with Jesus we become righteousness itself.

You're confusing words with ideas here, MM. The important thing to understand are the ideas that words are given to communicate, not just parrot words or phrases.

In Christ, we are "made the righteousness of God." We must avoid being deceived on this point. As it is written:

1 John
3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

This is a good thing to quote, because John writes that we are righteous if we do righteousness, which is exactly what the Hebrew concept of righteousness was. Doing works of righteousness included feeing the hungry, caring for the widow an d orphan, clothing the naked, having mercy and compassion, which John also brings out in his epistle (chapter 2, I think).

Without a host sin ceases to be sin.

If Christ became sin, literally speaking, then what was Christ's host?

Sin is the transgression of the law. That is what Jesus became when God heaped upon Him the sins of the world. Jesus was more than a human on the cross, He became sin itself. He became the transgression of God's law.

That doesn't really make sense, does it? For example, let's consider adultery. Christ became adultery. What exactly does that mean?

---

DA 107
To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. {DA 107.4}

TE: Those who cling to sin are unable to bear the brightness, the beauty, of God's character. You seem to be wanting to apply this to Christ(?). What's your idea?

MM: The brightness of God's glory consumes sin wherever it is found - even if it is Jesus. He so thoroughly identified Himself with sin that He became sin itself. Therefore, the glory of God, which destroys sin, destroyed Jesus.

Jesus was destroyed? Do you have any inspired reference for this assertion?

---

TE: I cannot even conceive as to what your thinking is, because the statement that "It is law and justice that must be satisfied - not God." is incomprehensible to me.

MM: I was responding to the Waggoner quote you posted - "The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible." What I meant to say was, It is law and justice that must be satisfied, not the wrath of God. I explained it more fully at the end of the my last post. Sorry for the confusion.

The wrath of God is propitiated, not satisfied. You're mixing metaphors here.

Waggoner's point was that the sacrifice was needed for us, not God.

---

TE: The punishment that Satan undergoes can't bad added to Christ's work. The work of Satan and the work of Christ are totally different.

MM: True. Jesus died for our sins; Satan will die with our sins. Both are necessary to fully satisfy law and justice, to fully pay the penalty of transgressing the law. Concerning the death of Satan in the lake of fire, she says, "The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met ...." The death of Satan with our sins is just as necessary to satisfy law and justice as was Jesus' death for our sins.

I agree with this, although these words and concepts mean something quite different to me than to you.

---

TE: It seems to me you say that Christ's death was unlike the wickeds', and then, on the other, you, you point out that Christ suffered the same thing the wicked will suffer.

MM: Sort of. The wicked will suffer in the lake of fire. Jesus did not. The wicked suffer in proportion to their own sinfulness. Jesus, on the other hand, suffered for all the sins of the world. Do you agree with these distinctions?

TE: You quoted DA 107, which has to do with the lake of fire, as applying to Jesus Christ. At least, that's what it looked to me that you were doing. I'm really not understanding what you're tying to say.

MM: Actually, here's what I wrote:

Tom, please listen carefully. Jesus did not die in the lake of fire like a sinner. Nevertheless, He "felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race." Do you see the differences and the similarities? (94024)

This wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to where you quoted DA 107 and applied that to Christ.

---

TE: You are saying that God's wrath was *not* involved on the cross, that God's wrath doesn't come in until later on?

MM: No, that's not what I meant. I was addressing the Waggoner quote. It was an angel who said, "The soul that sinneth it shall die an everlasting death - a death that will last forever, from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased." {EW 51.2}

The appeasement of God's wrath will not occur until sin, in the form of unsaved sinners, is destroyed in the lake of fire. Jesus tasted and consumed this wrath for us on the cross, and Satan and unsaved sinners will exhaust God's wrath by being consumed with sin in the lake of fire.

God's wrath is appeased because there is no sin. As long as sin exists, God hates it.
---

TE: You have yet to present any Scriptural evidence whatsoever, not so much as a single verse, that God needed the sacrifice of Jesus in order to have the legal right to pardon.

MM: You have rejected the verses and evidence presented in support of the truth.

What Scripture have you presented as evidence that God needed the sacrifice of Christ to have the legal right to pardon?

---

TE: Why wouldn't God have the legal right to pardon simply by virtue of being God?

MM: Because He established law and justice as unbiased judges, which were based on His very own character.

God established law and justice to judge Him? So God does something, and then asks law, "Is this OK?" And then He asks justice "is this OK"?

Do you not understand that law and justice are concepts, and not actual people?

He will do nothing contrary to His character, contrary to law and justice, which require Him to punish and destroy sinners the instant they sin.

This is no different than what I've been saying, that the statement that law requires such and such, or that justice requires such and such is no different than saying that God requires such and such. This is to obvious, it's amazing it needs to be pointed out.

Your point of view is simply this: God, because of His justice and holiness is required to (do whatever)

---

TE: *We* need Christ!

MM: Amen! And so did God since it was His great desire to save us from eternal death.

That's an interesting way of putting it.

Law and justice demand death for sin, either sinners must die, or the Son of God must die in their place. Either way, someone must die eternally for and with the sins we commit. It was Jesus who died for the sins of the world. Sinners, therefore, cannot die for their sins.

In the case of unsaved sinners, they will die eternally in the lake of fire with the sins they themselves committed.

You just contradicted yourself here in the last two sentences.

In the case of saved sinners, Satan will die eternally in the lake of fire with the sins they committed and with the sins which he himself committed.

As well as for the sins he caused the unsaved to commit. I've produced this quote from EGW several times. I can try to find it again if you want, although you should remember it.

TE: You are saying that Christ metamorphasized into sin? He ceased being a human being, and became sin instead?

MM: Sin is the transgression of the law. Jesus became sin itself. I do not pretend to understand it. By faith I accept it. Something about Jesus changed when God laid the sins of the world upon Him.

---

TE: Jesus was destroyed? Do you have any inspired reference for this assertion?

MM: Perhaps it was that "something" about Jesus that changed when God laid the sins of the world upon Him that was destroyed. I don't know.

---

TE: I agree with this, although these words and concepts mean something quite different to me than to you.

MM: What does this mean to you - "The death of Satan with our sins is just as necessary to satisfy law and justice as was Jesus' death for our sins."

---

TE: I was referring to where you quoted DA 107 and applied that to Christ.

MM: Jesus became sin itself. To sin, wherever it is found, our God is a consuming fire, a destroyer. Did the glory of God destroy that part of Jesus that became sin itself?

---

TE: God's wrath is appeased because there is no sin. As long as sin exists, God hates it.

MM: Where there are no sinners, there is no sin. To eliminate sin, it is necessary to eliminate sinners.

---

TE: God established law and justice to judge Him?

MM: In a sense, yes. It's His way of telling FMAs, This is how We will govern the universe. You can trust Us to rule accordingly. No changes, no surprises, no loopholes. This is what you can expect from Us.

---

MM: Sinners, therefore, cannot die for their sins. In the case of unsaved sinners, they will die eternally in the lake of fire with the sins they themselves committed.

TE: You just contradicted yourself here in the last two sentences.

MM: How?

MM: He will do nothing contrary to His character, contrary to law and justice, which require Him to punish and destroy sinners the instant they sin.

TE: This is no different than what I've been saying....

MM: I'm surprised you think so.

This is a problem with one's ideas, if it leads one to "believe" things one doesn't understand. Not taking things literally which shouldn't be taken literally would help avoid these situations of "believing" things not understood.

Not understanding what one "believes" should give one pause. The truth should be understandable and explainable. We are to give a reason for our faith. "I don't pretend to understand, but by faith I accept" is not much of a reason.



Intelligent appreciation is what God desires, not dull, insensate "faith." When we have an intelligent appreciation of His character, that's when we can render Him voluntary service, and we will want to, because of that appreciation. Otherwise we just "serve" God because we are afraid of what will happen to us if we don't.



Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He didn't change. He didn't need changing.

---



If you "don't know," perhaps you should consider a different idea.

---



"Justice," has to do with what is right, what is fair, what is the way things should be. If Satan were not to bear responsibility for the things he instigated, that wouldn't be right. This is an organic thing, by the way, not arbitrarily imposed. Satan knows what he did, and his conscience will bear that.


---


You're interpreting words literally that have no business being interpreted that way. It would be much better to try to understand the intended meaning.

When Paul said that Christ became sin for us, Paul meant something. He did not mean that Christ metamorphasized into sin, which appears to be how you are interpreting him.


---


This is way backwards. If this were the case, God could have just destroyed Satan at the beginning and avoided the pain and suffering that followed sin. It saddens me to read your saying this. We've discussed this in the past.

In order to do away with sin, God must reveal the truth. It is the truth that allows for sin to be done away with, not violence. Once the truth is known by all, God can allow all the obtain the fruit of the choices they have made.

---


God came up with the law. If we don't trust God, we won't trust His law. We see exactly this in the case of Satan.
---



"Sinners, therefore, cannot die for their sins" contradicts "in the case of unsaved sinners, they will die eternally in the lake of fire with the sins they themselves committed." because one sentence says sinners do not die for their sins and the following one says they do.

I was responding to this part "He will do nothing contrary to His character, contrary to law and justice." Of course God is not required to punish and destroy sinners the instant they sin, as is obvious. Just look at Satan, for example.

MM: Tom, I’m getting the impression you believe you understand everything you know about God. Is there nothing you believe about God that you accept on faith because you cannot explain it?

I believe Jesus became sin itself because Inspiration says so. I cannot explain how, but it doesn’t prevent me from believing it.


MM: I agree. But I also believe law and justice requires death for sin, and since Jesus ascended to heaven, sin did not remain in the grave. It exists in the MHP. Therefore, Satan must die with our sins in the lake of fire, from which there is no resurrection. Then law and justice will be fully satisfied, the death penalty will be fully paid.


MM: And you appear to be totally convinced your understanding of what Paul meant is correct, and that all other interpretations are wrong. Sort of makes you closed minded, doesn’t it? What if you’re wrong?


MM: It is the “brightness” of God’s glory that destroys sinners with their sins in the lake of fire. Compare 2 Thes 2:8.


MM: We can trust God to rule the universe in accordance with His law. The law requires death for sin. God is obligated to enforce the law. In this sense, “God established law and justice to judge Him”, to govern how He rules the universe.


MM: The one says “for” and the other says “with”. Sinners cannot die “for” their sins in the way Jesus died for them. That is, they cannot die for their sins and live eternally thereafter. In the lake of fire all they can do is die with their sins. Do you see what I mean?

I don't have this concept of faith. I don't believe faith is believing something that you can't understand, but belief is based on evidence. There is nothing I believe about God, that I am aware of, that I do so without evidence. There's nothing I believe about God, that I'm aware of, that doesn't make sense to me.



It prevents you from believing it in any meaningful way.





God said so-and-so, I don't understand it, but I believe it, is not a satisfactory reason.



Spiritual things are spiritually understood. You are looking at the whole process literally, which trivializes the whole thing.

Our problem is that because of sin we have been estranged from God. We are afraid of Him. We are afraid of the judgment. We don't really love Him, but we fear what He will do to us. We don't trust Him. We don't understand Him. We don't know what He's like.

Satan has misrepresented God and thus deceived us. The Great Controversy is about setting the record straight, revealing the truth about God.

What God has revealed to us by way of Christ's ministry has to do with cleansing our heart from sin. Sin resides in our hearts and minds, not physically in some location outside of ourselves.

For example, we are told that Christ sprinkles His blood, correct? He doesn't literally do that. There is no literal blood in heaven.



I'm totally convinced that Paul meant the same thing Christ did. You're suggesting I'm close-minded seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. You insist that Lucifer did not sin before being given an opportunity to receive pardon, even though EGW writes that he was given the opportunity to "confess his sin" before being banished from heaven.

During the years we have been here, I have stated things that were shown to be wrong. When that has happened, I have acknowledge my error.

You have presented many quotes I wasn't aware of (thank you, by the way), and I have laid hold of these quotes, allowing them to add to my understanding of the issues we discuss.

My view regarding the atonement is not fixed. It's changing as we speak as I seek to understand it better. It's a subject that is inexhaustible. So no, I wouldn't presume to claim to understand Paul perfectly, not even necessarily very well. However, while confessing my ignorance of the totality of Paul's understanding, I am sure he didn't believe in penal substitution. In addition to their being no evidence based on what he wrote that he did, historically such an idea makes no sense.



I agree, although I'm sure we understand this differently as well. I'm guessing you understand this as literally referring to a very bright light and molten lava, or something similar.



We won't have any more respect for God's law than we have for God, which is why your suggestion doesn't seem to explain the situation to me.

Let's think this out. I have some doubt as to whether God will be fair or not. So God whips out a law, which He made up, and says, "look, this says I'm right"?

Say you work with me, and we get into an argument, and I say, "Here, wait out here a moment while I go into my office. I've got a document which proves I'm right." And then, 10 minutes later, I produce a document.

How do you know the document I produce didn't already exist? I could have just made it up. The integrity of the document I produce can have no more weight to you than the weight you give to my integrity.

But this was the whole problem with God. Can God be trusted? The only way God could prove He is trustworthy was by presenting evidence of such in His dealings with His creatures in a variety of circumstances over a period of time. By seeing how God acts and thinks, we can ascertain what He is really like. This is why Christ came, to reveal what God is like.

This isn't something that could be resolved by producing a document. God's saying He will allow Himself to be judged according to some document He Himself created is of no value, if we doubt God in the first place, as we will not trust His document any more than we trust Him.



If Jesus died for their sins, then they have already been paid for, so how is it that they pay for something Christ already paid for?

MM: Can you explain it? That’s my question. Can you explain how God did/does everything you believe about Him? Can you explain how He created everything out of nothing? Can you explain how He can be everywhere at the same time? Can you explain how He became a human? Yes, we have the evidence, but can you explain the how?


MM: Just because I cannot explain how Jesus became “sin itself” it doesn’t mean my faith is less than meaningful. I cannot explain how He became a human, but I believe it, and my faith is rewarded handsomely. Thus it is with many things I believe about God.


MM: Yes, the death of Jesus demonstrates the self-sacrificing love of God. It motivates us to love and obey Him. But you seem to believe this affect on us is the only reason why Jesus had to die, that He had to die because it was the only way to motivate us morally to love and obey God.

But Inspiration clearly says Jesus also had to die because law and justice demanded it, death must come in consequence of man’s sin. That’s the way God set things up in the beginning – You sin, you die. Someone must die eternally with sin. The horrible suffering associated with dying for sin serves as a deterrent to future sinning.

This death cannot be set aside. Mercy is not a substitute for the death penalty. Pardon is not a substitute for the death penalty. Ceasing to sin is not a substitute for the death penalty. Death is the only way to rid the universe of sin. No more sinners means no more sin.


MM: Thank you. By the way, I do not recall you ever admitting to being wrong on MSDAOL. Not that you wouldn’t if it happened; it’s just that I don’t remember it ever happening.


MM: Yes, I believe it is the literal brightness of God’s glory, and literal fire, that causes the punishment and destruction of the wicked. What do you believe?


MM: Where there is no law, there is no sin. The presence of sin proves the presence of law. It is death to live in violation of God’s law. Says Who? God! Lucifer disagreed and rebelled. God will not destroy Lucifer until the truth about His law is crystal clear to FMAs, including Lucifer himself. The truth will not be clear to everyone until the 144,000 triumph over tribulation during the final crisis. What God said about His law in the beginning will be clear to everyone in the end.

Romans
7:7 What shall we say then? [is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead.
7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
7:10 And the commandment, which [was ordained] to life, I found [to be] unto death.
7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew [me].
7:12 Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

1 Timothy
1:8 But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;
1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.


MM: Law and justice demands that sinners die eternally with their sins. Jesus did not pay this part of the death penalty. That’s why it took two goats on the Day of Atonement to cleanse the sanctuary. Both Jesus and Satan must die to fully satisfy law and justice.

The why questions are the ones that get at God's character. Why is how important? (note, a "why" question )



Not if you're not believing anything meaningful, just a bunch of words strung together, which you have no idea what they mean.



Not at all! I've pointed this out to you many times. There are many things Jesus accomplished by His life (really, His death should not be separated from His life, or resurrection, for that matter). How we are motivated is, as you point out, just one thing. I've been more concerned in our discussion with arguing *against* a certain idea, which is that the death of Christ was necessary in order for God to obtain the legal right to pardon us.



You see this as something separate, but I don't. Jesus' life, death and resurrection were necessary in order to win the Great Controversy. Considering just the human part of this, what was necessary was that man be reconciled to God. Justice, which is to say God, is satisfied when this happens. So is the law, because by bring man into harmony with God, man is simultaneously brought into harmony with God's law, which is a transcript of His character.

"Justice," as used in Scripture, has to do with restoration, not retribution. For example:



Justice, in Scripture, is restorative, redemptive, administered by mercy and compassion. This verse is not an isolated example. Over and over we see justice expressed in terms of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, taking care of the widow and orphan, by acts of mercy and compassion. So to say "justice is satisfied" has a completely different connotation then under the idea of justice being retributive.

If justice is restorative and redemptive then justice is satisfied by the reconciliation and restoration of human beings.

Of the 19th SDAs, George Fifield seems to have had the best handle on this. I`ll see about posting something from him which deals with this shortly.

Of modern day SDAs, Ty Gibson comes to mind.




The death penalty is not an arbitrarily imposed penalty. It is organic to sin. As long as death is separated from sin, as something unrelated to it, except as an arbitrarily imposed penalty, it`s inevitable that the Plan of Salvation will be misunderstood. If we don`t understand what the problem is, we won`t understand the solution.

The problem is sin! Sin results in death. It does this by destroying our relationship, our connection, to God; it separates us from God. Through Christ, we may be brought back to God. This solves the problem of death.

To say that no more sinners means no more sin is fundamentally misunderstanding the problem of sin. If sin could be gotten rid of be destroying sinners, then God could have simply allowed Satan to suffer the result of his choice at the beginning. But that would have made things worse, not better (DA 764). As EGW correctly points out, sin could only be eliminated by making plain the results of sin, and making clear God's character.

In the end, sin is defeated by truth, not by violence or force, neither of which pertains to God's government.

If we have the idea that God wins in the end by destroying the enemy by force, we have neither understood the problem nor the solution.

When I'm presented with evidence that something I've posted is incorrect, I respond to that. It this site's search functionality works, you can find as example by searching for "mea culpa".

Regarding my perspective on things, it has changed a great deal in the five years or so I've been contributing to this forum, tremendously so. For example, when I first started posting here, I believed in penal substitution.



That this is not speaking literally. The brightness, for example, has to do with the glory of Christ, which is His character.



Since the same thing that slays the wicked gives life to the righteous, this could hardly be speaking literally.



This is making my point. You sake, "Says Who?" God! which is the point I was making.

If we don't trust God's integrity, His pointing to some document He concocted as an unbiased judge will hardly be convincing. We ask God, "Who says this document is an unbiased judge?" God says, "I do!" Well, if our whole question is whether or not God is trustworthy, if He is fair, that's hardly going to be a satisfactory answer.



Yes He did!





Your last sentence is what opponents of SDAs accuse us of believing, and what we have vehemently defended ourselves against.

TE: There are many things Jesus accomplished by His life (really, His death should not be separated from His life, or resurrection, for that matter).

MM: His godly life was not sufficient to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. In addition to His righteousness, law and justice demanded He die in consequence of man’s sin.

---

TE: "Justice," as used in Scripture, has to do with restoration, not retribution.

MM: Law and justice demand death for sin. It is not the office of law and justice to pardon. Mercy, pardon, and salvation are possible because Jesus’ atoning, substitutionary death satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice. It is the cleansing blood of Jesus that makes pardon possible.

RC 55
The law shows us our sins, as a mirror shows us that our face is not clean. The mirror has no power to cleanse the face; that is not its office. So it is with the law. It points out our defects, and condemns us, but it has no power to save us. We must come to Christ for pardon. {RC 55}

7BC 935
And yet while He saves the transgressor, He does not do away with the law of God, but He exalts the law. He exalts the law because it is the detector of sin. And it is Christ's cleansing blood that takes away our sins, when we come to Him with contrition of soul seeking His pardon. He imputes His righteousness, He takes the guilt upon Himself. {7BC 935.10}

---

TE: Sin results in death. It does this by destroying our relationship, our connection, to God; it separates us from God. Through Christ, we may be brought back to God. This solves the problem of death.

MM: If sin causes sinners to die, like poison kills people, why is it necessary for God to resurrect unsaved sinners after the Millennium? Why not just leave them dead?

If sin naturally kills sinners, like poison kills people, why are sinners alive and well? If you answer, sinners are alive and well because God is preventing them from dying, then I would ask, Why doesn’t God kill sinners by just “pulling the plug” rather than giving Satan permission to punish and kill them?

The phrase "demand of the law" is a metaphor. The law cannot literally demand anything. It has no brain or will.



Justice, as used in Scripture, has to do with restoration, not retribution. It is fulfilled by acts of mercy and compassion, as I showed. Your response here is not addressing the point made. You have no quotes from Scripture.

Once again, law and justice cannot literally condemn or pardon. They have no brain nor will. These are metaphors. God condemns, and God pardons.

The cleansing blood of Jesus makes pardon possible because of what it does for us. We are the ones that need to change.



I started a post on this subject a couple of years ago. The short answer is that the judgment reveals the truth, and the truth, both for and regarding those who have rejected God has not been revealed.



Read Faith and Works, the first essay. They are alive because of God's grace.



This is another FOTAP question. The best way of addressing your question that I can think of is to cite EGW's statement from GC, first chapter:

A thought comes to mind, MM. You claim that God, like man, is bound by His law. You also believe that God kills. But if God is bound by His law, then He can't kill. The law won't allow Him to. It would demand that justice be served against God.

The commandment means - Do not murder.

Is it possible for God to murder? Or would any killing of God automatically be reclassified as something else? If that's the case, what good is it to say that God is bound by the law, since any killing of God's would not be a violation of the law "Thou shalt not kill."

It is clear to me that God cannot sin. God is love, and love fulfills the law. If we think God has sinned because He kills people - we are wrong.

Titus
1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Romans
3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

How does this reply answer my question?

It is incorrect to assume God is violent because He kills sinners. There is nothing "violent" about it. The law confirms it. Killing sinners, when God commands or permits it, is in harmony with the law. Indeed, law and justice demand it. The law, unlike God, cannot pardon sinners. In this way the law is not a transcript of God's character.

This doesn't answer my question either. Here's my question:



If any killing that God would do is OK, then there's no point in saying that God abides by the law "Thou shalt not kill" as it has no impact on Him. If the law has some impact on Him, there needs to be some case where God is prohibited from doing something, so I'm asking for an example of that.

The reason I'm raising this point for discussion is that you brought out that God is bound by His law, and for that reason cannot pardon someone by Himself without death occurring because of His being bound by the law. But in the case of killing, it does not appear that you believe that God is bound by the law. At least I'm not seeing how. That's what I'm trying to get at.

The following insights confirm the truth about Jesus being our substitute and paying our sin debt of death. Law and justice demand death for sin. This debt must be paid. The only way God can justify pardoning penitent sinners, therefore, is due to the fact Jesus paid our sin debt of death. Jesus was treated like a sinner. This glorious truth is a wonderful problem. It is deeper than we can fathom.

MB 116
Glorious truth!--just to His own law, and yet the Justifier of all that believe in Jesus. {MB 116.1}

TMK 35
This wonderful problem--how God could be just and yet the justifier of sinners--is beyond human ken. As we attempt to fathom it, it broadens and deepens beyond our comprehension. {TMK 35.3}

AG 66
He is ready to pardon their sins if they will surrender and be loyal to Him. In order to be just, and yet the justifier of the sinner, He laid the punishment of sin upon His only begotten Son. {AG 66.3}

AG 138
The atonement that has been made for us by Christ is wholly and abundantly satisfactory to the Father. God can be just, and yet the justifier of those who believe. {AG 138.5}

MYP 69
God gave His only-begotten Son to save man. This He did that He might be just, and yet the justifier of all who accept Christ. Man sold himself to Satan, but Jesus bought back the race. {MYP 69.4}

9T
Christ bore our sins in His own body on the cross, that God might be just and yet the justifier of those who believe in Him. There is life, eternal life, for all who will surrender to Christ. {9T 193.2}

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}

SD 239
The justice, truth, and holiness of Christ, which are approved by the law of God, form a channel through which mercy may be communicated to the repenting, believing sinner. {SD 239.2}

SC 14
In becoming your Substitute and Surety, by surrendering My life, by taking your liabilities, your transgressions, I am endeared to My Father; for by My sacrifice, God can be just, and yet the Justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." {SC 14.1}

LHU
While the law of God is maintained, and its justice vindicated, the sinner can be pardoned. The dearest gift that heaven itself had to bestow has been poured out that God "might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." {LHU 227.2}

5BC 1150
God bowed His head satisfied. Now His justice and mercy could blend. He could be just, and yet the justifier of all who should believe on Christ. He looked upon the victim expiring on the cross, and said, "It is finished. The human race shall have another trial." The redemption price was paid, and Satan fell like lightning from heaven (MS 111, 1897). {5BC 1150.1}

HP 15
Was the penalty remitted because He was the Son of God? Were the vials of wrath withheld from Him who was made sin for us? Without abatement the penalty fell upon our divine-human Substitute. Hear His cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34). He was treated as a sinner, that we might be treated as righteous, that God might be just, and yet the justifier of the sinner. {HP 15.6}

AG 161
It could be successful only by . . . Christ becoming man, and suffering the wrath which sin has made because of the transgression of God's law. Through this plan the great, the dreadful God can be just, and yet be the justifier of all who believe in Jesus, and who receive Him as their personal Saviour. {AG 161.4}

FLB 101
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. The guilt of every sin pressed its weight upon the divine soul of the world's Redeemer. The evil thoughts, the evil words, the evil deeds of every son and daughter of Adam, called for retribution upon Himself; for He had become man's substitute. {FLB 101.3}

AG 172
What a price has been paid for us! Behold the cross, and the Victim uplifted upon it. Look at those hands, pierced with the cruel nails. Look at His feet, fastened with spikes to the tree. Christ bore our sins in His own body. That suffering, that agony, is the price of your redemption. {AG 172.4}

MM, this doesn't address my question either. Here's my question:



What you just posted has nothing to do with what I'm asking.

TE: But in the case of killing, it does not appear that you believe that God is bound by the law. At least I'm not seeing how. That's what I'm trying to get at.

MM: Indeed, law and justice demand that God punish sinners according to their sinfulness, and then destroy them. In killing sinners, therefore, God is obeying the law. In fact, God must justify pardoning sinners instead of killing them.

The idea that sin kills sinners doesn't make sense in light of the fact law and justice demand punishment and death. If it happens naturally it would be senseless to require it. God would not have to justify pardoning sinners if all it takes to prevent death is to give them access to the tree of life.

Genesis
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

EW 51
I was pointed to Adam and Eve in Eden. They partook of the forbidden tree and were driven from the garden, and then the flaming sword was placed around the tree of life, lest they should partake of its fruit and be immortal sinners. The tree of life was to perpetuate immortality. I heard an angel ask, "Who of the family of Adam have passed the flaming sword and have partaken of the tree of life?" I heard another angel answer, "Not one of Adam's family has passed that flaming sword and partaken of that tree; therefore there is not an immortal sinner. The soul that sinneth it shall die an everlasting death--a death that will last forever, from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased. {EW 51.2}

The law says, "Thou shalt not kill." It does not say "Thou shalt kill." On the one hand, you claim that God is bound by the law, but when I ask you to give an example of how this is the case for a specific circumstance, namely the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" you refuse to do so, and instead offer arguments as to why the *reverse* of what the command says is what God is bound to do!



When I asked you if you meant by "sin kills sinners" that "sin results in death," you appeared to me to be saying "yes," since you asked the question "What's the difference?" Since you're trying to represent my idea here, may I ask you to use my words? (which are actually Ellen White's words, which I find to be clearer than yours). So to restate the above, you are claiming "The idea that sin results in death doesn't make sense in light of the fact law and justice demand punishment and death."

It makes perfect sense if we simply understand that the death which sin results in *is* the punishment and death which the law and justice demand.

From the Spirit of Prophecy:





This is stating the reverse of your idea, it seems to me, about as clearly as it can be stated.



That's not at all true. It is by no means the case that only arbitrarily imposed things can be required.

The point is that the result of sin cannot be avoided. If God were to make some exception, that would perpetuate sin. It would violate the principles of love, truth and freedom.



That's not all that's necessary to prevent death. This is missing the whole point. What's necessary is not simply to prevent death but to give life. Jesus Christ is that life. What man needs is Christ.

In order to justify pardoning sinners, God must justify the sinner, which is to say, give Him life, and separate him from sin.

But aren't you reclassifying God's killing as something else when you say that at the final day God will stop sustaining the sinner's life?

I already spoke to that. I said it would be odd to characterize this act as "killing" someone. Especially if the person had no desire to live, it being torture for the person to stay alive.

The issue for me involves violence. If we say God puts certain people to sleep, there's no moral or ethical problem I see with God's doing that, which is to say, there's nothing out of harmony with His character to act in such a way. As A. T. Jones put it, it is not in harmony with God's character to needless prolong the suffering of an individual.

However, for God to do something violent to kill someone is completely out of harmony with His character. It would also mean that violence is a fundamental or integral part of God's government.

The idea that God must impose a violent penalty as retribution to pay for one's sin debt is the culprit. It leads to ideas such as God will burn people alive, and use special technology to keep the alive so they don't die right away, but instead keep alive for many days, so the shrieking and shouting in agony can continue. The holy grail of torture would have been found.





Supposedly God is acting identically to those prompted by Satan, but that's Ok, because it's God doing the torture and putting people to death, it's God who regulates the fire, so the agony can be prolonged (that's the theory I was hearing when this subject was discussed here in the past.)

Regarding classifying this behavior as "torture," it is defined be international law as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, ..."

The behavior supposedly to be committed by God is so inhumane that we have laws against it, and it's prohibited by international law as well.

I remember one time a couple of years ago I had a conversation with a Catholic, where I described his belief as God's torturing those who reject Him for all eternity, and he objected. First I produced the definition for "torture," but he was still unconvinced. Then I found a Catholic saint who actually used the word "torture," and then he was convinced, yes, God does torture the wicked for all eternity (it was OK to say that because a Catholic saint had said so), but this was OK, because it was God doing it.

Is it OK for God to do anything He wants? Is that what the Great Controversy is about? God's demonstrating that His kingdom will violently overcome the enemy, and violently torture and put to death all who oppose Him?

If there is a sin debt that must be paid by the guilty individual at the end because "justice demands it" and "God's wrath must be appeased," could God just put the guilty ones in a prison cell? Or solitary confinement? Why must they be burnt alive, something so inhumane, none of us would consider doing this to our worst enemy?

It seems to me there is something very wrong in an interpretation of God's being bound by law which insists that because of being bound to it, God must exact pain and suffering from His Son in order to pay off the debt the law demands, and that after doing that God still (even though the debt has already been paid) burn alive those who didn't want the pardon for up to many days.

Tom, if sin results in death, why don't sinners die the instant they sin?

Why does Inspiration say, If sinners had free access to the tree of life they would eat and live forever?

"... the death which sin results in *is* the punishment and death which the law and justice demand." Of whom does law and justice demand this death? If it happens naturally, what sense does it make to demand it? BTW, does this apply to the first or second death?

God has taken measures to prevent this from happening.



Death is "the inevitable result of sin." Because this death, before the cross, would have been misunderstood, God did not leave Satan and his host to reap the full result of their sin.



The tree of life had special properties to prolong the life of human beings, which God did not want to have happen, so as not to prolong their suffering.



It applies primarily to the second death. I just got a phone call. More later.

TE: God has taken measures to prevent this from happening.

MM: Sinners could live forever if God gave them free access to the tree of life. By denying them this access they die, which is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. You say God does something to prevent them from dying, whereas the Bible says He does something that causes them to die.

---

TE: Death is "the inevitable result of sin." Because this death, before the cross, would have been misunderstood, God did not leave Satan and his host to reap the full result of their sin.

MM: The reason death is inevitable is due to the fat God is obligated by law to execute sinners. Law and justice require God to punish and destroy sinners.

---

TE: The tree of life had special properties to prolong the life of human beings, which God did not want to have happen, so as not to prolong their suffering.

MM: Not so. She didn't say, The tree of life was to "prolong" life. She plainly says, "The tree of life was to perpetuate immortality." These two views are worlds apart.

EW 51
I was pointed to Adam and Eve in Eden. They partook of the forbidden tree and were driven from the garden, and then the flaming sword was placed around the tree of life, lest they should partake of its fruit and be immortal sinners. The tree of life was to perpetuate immortality. I heard an angel ask, "Who of the family of Adam have passed the flaming sword and have partaken of the tree of life?" I heard another angel answer, "Not one of Adam's family has passed that flaming sword and partaken of that tree; therefore there is not an immortal sinner. The soul that sinneth it shall die an everlasting death--a death that will last forever, from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased. {EW 51.2}

---

MM: "... the death which sin results in *is* the punishment and death which the law and justice demand." Of whom does law and justice demand this death? If it happens naturally, what sense does it make to demand it? BTW, does this apply to the first or second death?

TE: It applies primarily to the second death. I just got a phone call. More later.

MM: Okay.

Is this like the following:



I don't think it's prudent to make a whole theory out of the use of "forever."



The Bible says "The soul that sinneth shall die." "The wages of sin is death." "The sting of death is sin." The Spirit of Prophecy has scores of statements declaring that death is the result of sin, and that Satan is its author.



If the reason for death is not because of sin, as your are arguing, but God, then we are led to the conclusion that we must accept Christ as our Savior to save us from what God will do to us if we don't.



To perpetuate immortality means exactly to prolong life. Why do you think there's a difference?



Here is some more of a quote I presented before (not sure if in this thread)



This explains what it means to say that the law and justice demand that sin be punished.

Tom,

The question is the following: Did Jesus suffer a torture on the cross? Will the wicked suffer a torture in the lake of fire? Obviously this torture is caused by the consciousness of sin in view of God’s hatred of it. So in this sense it’s a punishment which results of sin. But – an this is an important point – it can’t be denied that this is an imposed punishment, because God Himself will raise the wicked to suffer this punishment. There would be absolutely no need to do that, except the need for the wicked to suffer for their sins. It seems to me there is something very wrong in saying that this is “putting someone to sleep” peacefully. This is not an euthanasia – a “good death” – it’s a fearful, horrible, cruel death. So what I see here is that there is a penalty – a mental torture which is the result of sin – and that God will specifically raise the wicked to pay this penalty. This is what I sincerely see when I examine the subject. Am I wrong?

By the way, on reading PK this morning, I ran upon this quote:

"We were all debtors to divine justice, but we had nothing with which to pay the debt. Then the Son of God, who pitied us, paid the price of our redemption." p. 652.

Certainly the answer to this question must be "yes." Crucifixion was a means of torture.



Two points. One is that metaphorically one could say they suffer torture, but not according to the definition they don't. Secondly, God hates sin because of what it does to His creatures. It is not God's hatred of sin which is the problem. It is sin which is the problem. Sin is responsible for the "torture".



Obviously we don't believe in the evangelical idea of what is labeled here as "unceasing torture." However, is the only difference between the truth and what they believe one of duration? That is, do we believe in "ceasing torture"? Or is there some difference in what is actually happening (not just the duration, but the event itself) from what is described here and what truly comes to pass?



It can be denied, and is denied, that this is an imposed penalty. For example:



I inserted the parenthetical comment "imposed" because, from the context, it's clear this is the point she is making. She is not arguing that the wicked's destruction occurs as a non-capricious act of power on the part of God, but as a non-imposed act of power on the part of God. If she were arguing that it was non-capricious, but still and act of God, she would not have continued the argument as she did, pointing out again and again that the cause is due to their own action. Rather she would point out that God's actions were righteous and just, and that He good reason to do what He was doing.

Also although God raises the wicked up to suffer punishment, this is not the only reason they are rasied up, and not even the primary one. The primary reason has to do with the truth being made known to the whole universe, which is the only way the Great Controversy can be ended. Every person must freely acknowledge that God has been right and true in all His dealings. The whole Great Controversy has been over the questions regarding God's character which have been raised. Is God fair? Is He selfish? Does He consider the interests of His own creatures, or only His own? The judgment will bring out the truth for all to see. It is indeed unfortunate that many will suffer as a result, but there's no way to avoid that, and still provided everyone an opportunity to understand and acknowledge the truth.



This is not the case, as explained just above.



Yes, I think so. I think you're misevaluating the primary purpose of the judgment. The primary purpose has to do with every knee bowing at the knee of Christ, and His being acknowledged as rightful King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

To the extent that this is a "cruel death," that cruelty is 100% due to the nature of sin, which is cruel to its followers. God is in no sense cruel.

The definition of torture, to me, is "any severe physical or mental pain; agony; anguish" (Webster's, 3d acceptation). It may or may not be inflicted by someone. I don't think God inflicts a torture for the pleasure of doing it. But I do believe that sin must be judged, and that God won't abstain from doing that just to spare sinners from the suffering this entails. Therefore, He will raise them specifically for that purpose.

Tom, I hear you saying sin is what causes sinners to suffer and die in the lake of fire, that God does nothing that adds to their suffering and death. But I also hear you saying, to sin, wherever found, our God is a consuming fire, that the glory of God causes sinners to burn up and die with their sins. How do I reconcile these points?

I also agree there is no way to reconcile that, MM. Sin, in itself, can only result in the first death. The second death requires two ingredients: sin + the glory of God.

That's not how I'm using the word. I'm using it as defined by international law:



That the pain is intentionally inflicted by someone is important to the point that I'm making.



The definition of torture, as defined by international law, does not require that pleasure be obtained in the act of inflicting pain. My point is that this theory would have God acting in a way which is so inhumane that it prohibited by international law. Can this be right? Is God one who tortures?

To say that sin must be judged is to ask the question, "Why?" To say that justice demands it doesn't say anything meaningful. It is God who decides what He will and won't do. So why does God raise the wicked?

It seems clear to me that the reason involves recognizing that Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, which is another way of saying that God's character will be vindicated, and He will be recognized as having been a God of love, an unselfish God, One who has always valued the best interests of His creatures above His own. Thus it must be the case that the judgment is in the own best interests for the wicked themselves. And in reading GC 541-543, this indeed seems to be a point being raised. For example:



If it were simply a matter of a slight to Himself, of God's turning the other cheek instead of insisting upon vengeance, then the wicked would not be rested. That God would act this way is clearly seen in the life of Christ. However, there is more involved in the judgment than simply God's own well being or God's desire to have vengeance or justice.

Satan is the author of sin and all its results. God mercifully brings the suffering of the wicked to an end. They suffer because they cannot stand being around God or heaven.





God's glory is simply His character. The passage which says that God's glory slays the wicked actually says, "The glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked." Now if God were imposing something against the wicked, this sentence wouldn't make sense.

God is simply being Himself, which, because of what the wicked have done to themselves, in comiting themselves to sin, has unfitted them to be in His presence. But since God's presence is everywhere, God mercifully allows them to die.



What I wrote above covers this point.

Any sin affects the whole universe, therefore it must be judged before the universe.
The quote you provided says:

"God executes justice upon the wicked, for the good of the universe, and even for the good of those upon whom His judgments are visited."(GC 541, 542)

By "executing justice" Ellen White does not refer to the judgment itself, but to the execution of the sentence, that is, God's act of removing the sinner´s life. He does this for the good of the universe and, of course, for the good of the sinner himself, since "the Lord could not do a more cruel thing than to save man in his rebellion" {ST, November 15, 1899 par. 8}.

However, in practical terms, since the wicked were already dead there would be no need to remove their lives. In fact, some will be spared this (the slaves mentioned by Ellen White, etc.), which means that all could be spared this, were it not for the fact that willful transgression of the law requires judgment.

God's physical presence doesn't need to be everywhere. God is not physically present on this earth, and Satan would live comfortably here for ever. In fact, this was exactly his plan.

God does something artificial, one could say, to allow Satan to continue to live. If God had left Satan to reap the full consequences of his sin, he would have died long ago.

The glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked. God's glory will be everywhere. As soon as God stops the intervention which allows Satan to continue living, he will die.

Back to the question of human beings being burned alive by fire as punishment for their sins, how do you see this working? It seems to me, given the description of the earth as a lake of fire, and the knowledge that beneath the earth's crust, which is much thinner than an egg shell comparatively (as the flood waters were underneath the earth's crust before the flood), that the fire being spoken of is molten lava. Molten lava, being composed of different material than water, is around 1200 degrees centigrade (as opposed to water, which is, of course, 100 degrees) or over 2100 degrees fahrenheit. The wicked are resurrected with the same bodies they had when they went to the grave, bodies which might exist for about 5 seconds or so in such temperatures.

So how do the wicked survive for 5 days? How does one here understand God's actions to be more like the actions of Jesus Christ then medieval torturers? If the wicked need to be punished to pay off some debt, then why not allow them to do so in a humane way? Like how Satan is tied to the earth for 1,000 years, with an opportunity to consider what he has done. That's humane. Why burn them alive for days upon end? How is this "justice"?

How do we know that Satan is still alive? Where is the evidence? There is so much unwarranted speculation?

Darius

May I suggest you read Rev. 20 where it states clearly that the devil is finally placed in the lake of fire after the millennium. Does that make sense?

Does God do something more to keep satan alive than He does to keep anyone else alive? That including unfallen angels.. There are many very good reasons why it would be impossible for such large amounts of water to coexist with molten rock enclosed by the earths crust for any time whatsoever without resulting in a catastrophe which would not only terminate all life on earth but also ensure that it would not possibly return for an unknowable amount of time. The crust of earth can't even keep the lava within without letting off preasure through volcanoes and earthquakes. Adding bilions of tons of superheated water would create a result simmilar to a death star attack from star wars.

From DA 764 we read:



The "this" in "understand this" is that the death of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God (previous paragraph).

In DA 107, we are told that the same thing, God's glory, both slays the wicked and gives life to the righteous. So God acts differently now towards the unfallen and fallen angels. To the unfallen angels, He reveals His glory. He can't do that to the fallen angels, or they would perish.

Regarding the flood waters being under the earth's crust, Scripture tells us that the waters burst forth from the great depths. The flood models I have seen designed by Creation scientists have the flood starting by waters erupting into the earth's atmosphere, and then descending as rain.

From EGW:



I seem to remember a statement somewhere, similar to this, that talks about how there were those who argued that there was not enough water in the atmosphere to do the damage Noah was prophesying, but that they did not know about the waters beneath the earth's surface.

Johann, is that the same being who was Satan in the beginning? The Pope is always the Pope but the individual in the office changes.

If God keept such huge amounts of water beneeth the earths crust, it is no less miraculous than had God created all the extra water specifically for the purpose of washing earth clean of life and then uncreated all the extra water again in order to give Noah and the animals land to live on.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

Originally the earth did not have the vast oceans it has now. Much of these waters were under the earth's surface.



I also recall reading Sister White saying that after creation there were bodies of water, but not the vast oceans that we have now.

A final comment is that I'm sure the Lord did not create the waters underneath the earth's surface for the purpose of wiping man out. In the description of creation, we are told that the Spirit moved upon the face of the waters and cause dry land to be separated. We don't know the constitution of things before the flood, but evidently the water was there as an after-effect of creation.

When man sinned, the earth began to "wax old" as Romans puts it, and God has had to work to keep the earth in good condition. Many don't recognize this, but the earth is dependent upon God's active input for its well being.

Just pointing out that these things do not answer to physical laws as we know them today. But maybe that is ok?

I think they're in harmony with physical laws as we know them today. If you check out the web site I referenced, these are scientists (with no access to Ellen White's writings) who are trying to understand what happened in the flood, on the basis of physical laws as we know them today.

The earth may have been different, but it was operating under the same laws we know.


Tom

God could restrain His glory for ever, and could sustain Satan’s life for ever. The fact that He chooses not to do so shows that He takes the initiative to destroy sin. Sin will not destroy itself.


I don’t know how this works. We are just telling you what we read in the Bible and in Ellen White. Let’s suppose, however, that this fire refers first to the mental suffering the wicked will experience, and only afterwards, after they are dead, to the literal fire (as you seem to believe). You seem to consider that mental suffering hurts less than physical suffering. There is mental torture ("torture" in the sense I explained previously) in the lake of fire, and although it’s not inflicted, it’s permitted by God. We have evidence that the suffering involved in this mental torture is worse than in the physical torture (Ellen White says Christ’s agony was so great He barely felt the pain on the cross), or at least similar to it:

He (the sinner) will realize that because of transgression, his soul is cut off from God, and that God's wrath abides on him. This is a fire unquenchable, and by it every unrepentant sinner will be destroyed. {ST, April 14, 1898 par. 13}

Obviously this experience is very different from Satan’s reflection about his acts during the 1,000 years, which you consider a “humane punishment.” How do you see this?

Not and be consistent with His character, He couldn't. There's a reason that Satan still exists. He exists because there are still unresolved issues in regards to the Great Controversy. When the issues have been resolved in the minds of all of God's intelligent creatures, including Satan himself, then there will no longer be any point to artificially continuing to allow Satan to live, when by all rights he should be dead.

Satan does not have life in himself. God does not have to violently kill him in order for Satan to die.

The idea you seems reminiscent of Deism, where God winds up the universe like a clock, and just sits back and watches. But all things depend upon the active participation of God, even inanimate things.



Even the earth is dependent upon God in order to maintain its position. How much more are living beings dependent upon God in order to have life.

The assertion that sin will not destroy itself is contrary to logic. Sin is disobedience the law, contrary to the law of life for the universe:



To act contrary to the principles of life, which is encapsulated in self-sacrificing love, is to die. The only reason we do not see more of the destructive power of sin is because of the grace of God.



When the angels of God stop holding back the winds of strife, we will see the destructive power of sin.

It is in mercy, as Ellen White points out, that the final destruction takes place quickly. If God acted as you suggested, continuing to artificially keep beings alive who should be dead, they would have to be kept in prison cells in order to keep from killing each other.

The fact that sin does not destroy itself is due to the grace of God, and not due to a lack of destructiveness that sin inherently has.

Well if your reading leads to a position that has God acting like a medieval torturer, perhaps that reading should be reconsidered.



It looks to me that you are skirting the issue. You have suggested that God takes the initiative to burn people alive for their bad deeds, and that somehow this is "justice" as opposed to barbarism. How so? I don't see how this is possible. That God, the one we see perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ, would burn people alive, and supernaturally do something to either them or the fire He is burning them with so that they don't die so that He can continue to do it longer is unthinkable.

Can we imagine Jesus Christ saying to the woman caught in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more, so I won't have to burn you alive to make you pay for your bad deeds?"

In regards to your question, the agony that the wicked go through is not imposed upon them by God. He does not inflict them with pain. This is all due to the working of Satan, and sin. EGW writes that Satan is the author of sin and *all* of its results. The agony that the wicked suffer is one of those results. As such, Satan, and not God, is its author, meaning that Satan, and not God, causes it to happen.

What is it that causes the agony, described by Jesus as weeping and gnashing of teeth? It is the recognition of the truth. It is the recognition that they could have had heaven, and the opening of the conscience to the evil that they have committed.

There is no arbitrarily imposed pain upon the wicked by God, either physically or mentally. God simply is not like that, not in the least, which was wonderfully and completely demonstrated by Jesus Christ. Just look how He treated those who were torturing and killing Him. That's how God is. Not as a show, or temporary demonstration, but all the time.

If we would only recognize what an awful, terrible, destructive, hideous thing sin is, we wouldn't need to ascribe to God actions which would have Him imposing tortures, either physical or mental, upon those who choose another way than His.

Well, it’s according to the logic of inspiration:

God has declared that sin must be destroyed as an evil ruinous to the universe. Those who cling to sin will perish in its destruction. {COL 123.3}

To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29). In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. {DA 107}


Where have I suggested that God takes the initiative to burn people alive? Where have I said that it is God who inflicts the wicked with pain?

God destroys sin by allowing it to reap its fruit. Inspiration indicates this by saying that if Satan and his hosts were "left" to reap the results of their sin, they would perish, and just a little later inspiration also describes death as "the inevitable result of sin" having just earlier pointed out that it is not due to an arbitrary (imposed, from the context) act of God.

This sort of issue cannot be solved by simply citing a simple sentence "from inspiration." There are deep issues that need to be carefully considered. My post was a lengthly one, which went into several of these issues.

There are two issues in particular that it would be good to deal with. One has to do with whether the law of God is arbitrary, and it's penalties arbitrary (or "imposed" or "external" -- not "capricious" or "without a purpose").

Another issue, closely related is if sin, which is disobedience to the law, is a principle that leads or tends to life. There are two options, life and death. If it doesn't tend to life, then it tends to death.

The "law of life" is described as the law of giving, of self-sacrificing love, which would be contrary to the "law of death," right? So if the "law of life" is one of unselfish giving, then what would the "law of death" be? Clearly, selfish taking.

Now is the law of life a life of life simply because God rewards those who unselfishly give with life? Is that what EGW has in mind in DA chapter 1 where she discusses the circuit of beneficence? Or is there a principle involved where agape, the love of God, manifested in Christ, is a principle which tends to life? The context surely indicates the latter.







The penalty of breaking the law in inherent in the breaking of it.




If I recall, when we had this discussion before, you talked about God's regulating the fire that burns the wicked alive so that it wouldn't kill them right away. Am I remembering this incorrectly?

What happens is that the sentence from inspiration is very clear:

To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29). ... Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. {DA 107}

Are you denying that the glory of God destroys sin?


First, I don't believe that God will have to send fire upon people, so I didn't suggest that God takes the initiative to burn people alive. Second, I've said clearly that it is not God who inflicts the wicked with pain, although He permits this to happen.
Third, I don't remember my exact words in previous discussions but, according to GC 673.1 obviously the suffering will last shorter or longer according to the gravity of the person's sins. And "after all have perished who fell by his deceptions, [Satan] is still to live and suffer on." But if God doesn't send the fire, He also doesn't regulate it.
Fourth, the fire which consumes the wicked is said to consume both soul and body, so it will also be physical:

"Against every evildoer God's law utters condemnation. He may disregard that voice, he may seek to drown its warning, but in vain. It follows him. It makes itself heard. It destroys his peace. If unheeded, it pursues him to the grave. It bears witness against him at the judgement. A quenchless fire, it consumes at last soul and body. {Ed 144.5}

Another interesting passage says:

[Christ was] the only One who could bear the strokes in behalf of the sinner and because of His innocence not be consumed. {HP 42.4}

So, although Christ died under the agony of the weight of sin, He was not consumed, which means that the word "consumed" does not refer only to an agony which leads to death. So, one hypothesis would be that the suffering of the wicked begins with this agony, but finally sets the the body itself in flames (a kind of spontaneous combustion?), consuming both soul and body. This is just a hypothesis for, as I have said, I can't know how things will work.

The question is not whether or not this sequence of words is true or not, but what it means. If the way that God destroys sin is by burning alive sinners and then killing them, how could one say that the glory of God destroys sin?

I notice that she writes, just a little later from the quote you cited, that the same thing which destroys sinners (lit. "slays the wicked") gives life to the righteous. So how does that work? This indicates that the destruction that occurs cannot be something imposed, because the *same thing* (the glory of God) which slays the wicked gives life to the righteous.

Therefore the cause of the destruction of the wicked *must* involve their having ruined themselves in some way so that something which should result in life (being in the presence of God's glory) results in death. Their death is not due to an imposed (or arbitrary) act of power by God, since the same "act" of God which slays them gives life to the righteous, but is the inevitable result of their own choices and actions, which is exactly what EGW says many times in the DA 764 passage.



You took part in a discussion initiated by MM regarding the wicked's being burned, and defended his position, so, I quite naturally assumed you agreed with his position. If you disagreed with his position, then some comment along the lines of "I disagree with (whatever)" would have helped to clarify the situation.

The wicked are raised without special resurrection bodies. The fire being spoken of is very likely molten lava, at least where it speaks of the earth being a lake of fire, which is well over 1000 degrees centigrade. Regardless of the type of fire actually involved, any fire which would cause a person to catch on fire would kill that person very quickly, in a matter of seconds, not days.

The way you have laid things out sounds much more like the position I have laid out than MM's.

If you disagree with the assertion that the wicked are dead before being burned by a physical fire, and also disagree with the assertion that they only are burned by physical fire for a few seconds, then we are back to the situation I originally set out, which is that God is supernaturally keeping people alive so that He can burn them by fire in order to make them pay for their sins.

I think my position is midway between his position and yours.


True, I agree that the wicked ruined themselves in some way so that the presence of God’s glory results in death to them (instead of life). I also don’t think this is an arbitrary act of God. This will bring Him infinite sadness. But it is God who decides when this will occur. He knows that bringing the wicked to the presence of His glory will result in their death, but He must judge and destroy sin. His objective is not to destroy people, however He knows people will inevitably perish in the destruction of sin.


Please analyze this quote again:

[Christ was] the only One who could bear the strokes in behalf of the sinner and because of His innocence not be consumed. {HP 42.4}

What does “not be consumed” here means? It must mean something different from experiencing the agony of the separation of God which leads to death, because Christ experienced this. If He experienced this and was not consumed, I understand that “consumed” here means not that God would rain fire upon Christ, but that, if Christ hadn’t been innocent, He would have experienced a physical reaction to God’s glory which would have led to His extinction (what else could this refer to?). It seems to me that this physical reaction would occur while the person is still alive, as the last part of the process, would involve fire, and would last what it commonly lasts in a physical body. But, as I said, this is just a hypothesis.

I don't think so. At least, from what you're writing here, it seems not much different from mine, but very much different than his.



Good! I'm glad we agree on this. I'm glad you pointed out that it will bring God infinite sadness.



Who else would it be? Why write "but"? Have I somehow been arguing that it is not God, but someone else, who decides when the judgment will take place?



I think I disagree with this. That is, if you're saying *the* reason that the wicked are destroyed is that He must judge and destroy sin. This judge begs the question, why? That is, why must God judge and destroy sin. It's certainly true that sin cannot go on forever, but why not?

One of the things EGW points out is that it is in mercy that God does what He does, and that the decision to be excluded from heaven is voluntary with the wicked. It is in the wicked's own best interest that they not continue to exist. They would just be miserable. There would be no point in continuing their existence, and so God doesn't. Not because "sin must be judged" but because God's acting in such a way is in the best interest for all concerned, not the least of which are the wicked themselves.



I agree with this completely, and would just add that it is the revelation of the truth, not literal fire, which brings out the destruction of sin.

What is this about "my position is between his and yours?" Do we think we are developing a theory here? Do we think that what we conclude determines what God must do? I don't get this discussion.

How is this different than any other discussion, Darius? No discussion determines what God will do, of course, but we discuss things to try to better understand them.

"My position" and "your position" is simply short-hand for not having to write out something like "the position I have been presenting during this thread."

I thought we were searching for truth when it comes to the gospel? I must be mistaken.

Why must you be mistaken?

Let's face it, Tom. Adventists discussions are more about what the church professes than about truth.

How does this insight relate to this thread, or your comments on this thread?

If we truly wanted to gain understanding we would not begin with the assumption that there is someone or something who is authorized to demand a price for the Creator's handiwork.

So you're taking issue with the topic question? I understood the topic question to be essentially equivalent to asking, "What was the purpose of Jesus' death"? However, even that question may be a bit misleading, as it may be taken to imply that Jesus' death can be separated from His life and/or resurrection.

I agree with you that there appears to be a FOTAP aspect to the question (fallacy of the assumed premise).

Whose truth?

What is truth, by your definition?

Truth is whatever is supported by reality.

"Thy Word is truth."

So asygo, the only "truth" then is the finite number of words in the bible that God spoke? And so we have to measure everything in the world, everything that goes on in our lives, up to those words? There is no other "truth"? (I don't know how many word's are listed in the bible that God directly spoke, but if you do, you can insert that number into my response, and that's ok)

Is there any "truth" to the statment that you were awake when you typed that last response? Or do I have to look to the bible for that answer?

So I think we should use the "truth" in this context as "what REALLY goes on in discussions about the adventist church's profession's. Let's examine what the "church" professes, and then look at what the "truth" is. I'm not sure I have any response to those questions at this time, but I think that's what the discussion was about.

If I'm wrong or way off base on that one, don't hesitate to let me know. I always look forward to constructive critisims, and welcome a chance to learn more. And if I've offended anyone with any of my __________(insert your favorite word here) responses, then I apoligize. I don't mean to offend, and I know I've got a lot of spirit and gusto (or choose words of your own here).

Which reality? And whose reality?

Surely you know that different persons may have very different realities. (If you don't, perhaps you could ask your wife. ;))

Funny

Not.

Reality!

Is that what you think Jesus meant when He said, "Thy Word is truth"?

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2He was in the beginning with God.
3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Jesus is the Word and Jesus is the Truth. God's Truth is a person.

An interesting, and I believe accurate, take. Exactly what I had in mind. Let's see what fun2believe thinks of it.

And God's Word is a person.

Agreed.

And that Person said, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." And that brings us back to the written words as an objective standard of truth.

Is it possible that when we reject the clear reading of the written words because they do not match our reality we actually reject the Truth/Word/Person of Jesus Christ in favor of our own judgment? (Kinda like having another god ...?)

"Clear reading of the written words" is pretty subjective, isn't it? I can see you rejecting the clear reading of the written words, but not me. Isn't that how everybody see it?

That is, when you believe something I disagree with, it's because you are rejecting the clear reading of the written words. However, when I believe something you disagree with, it's because you are not understanding what the written words really mean.

This also comes to mind:

Not necessarily.

The "clear reading" is the meaning most reasonably intelligent people would get out of the words without resorting to convoluted arguments.

Example: The Bible has some pretty clear things to say about sex outside of marriage, including same-gender sex. It refers to such homosexual sex a number of time, but never favorably. By contrast, the "marriage bed" of heterosexual marriage is pronounced "undefiled."

If you were a gay Christian activist, you would tell me that my reading is "subjective," because the Bible is really only forbidding same-gender sex for heterosexual persons (because it's "unnatural" for them) and it's forbidding sex with temple prostitutes. In case you're not familiar with this reading of the relevant texts, this reading is well "supported" by the original Greek and Hebrew on many web sites.

However, most people reading the prohibitions of a man lying with a man and women engaging in "unnatural" relations would read these as a straightforward prohibition against homosexual sex.

And that's what I mean when I write of the "clear reading of the written words."

Prophecy is quite another matter, of course, because, by its very nature, there is no "clear reading" but a purposeful hiding of the meaning which can be discerned by the "initiated" -- those led by the Spirit of God to study "line upon line, precept upon precept."

For that matter, i realize that the bottom line is that all spiritual mattes are spirituall discerned.

Most reasonably intelligent people believe the Bible teaches:
a)The soul is immortal, and there is an eternal hell.
b)Sabbath was done away with, and we should observe Sunday to honor Christ's resurrection
c)There is nothing wrong with eating pork, lobster etc.

Tom, I believe the reason for the death of Jesus can be viewed in more than one way, because the Bible uses various metaphors to explain it.

It uses the term "propitiation," which would be the aspect addressed in this question -- i.e. the substitutionary aspect.

Jesus is also declared to be our great Exemplar. In that case, His death demonstrated the principle of self-denying love that God wants to work out in our lives.

Jesus is also the representative of the character of God to us. Thus He demonstrated self-denying love in the most powerful way -- by dying for us. (The "for" here can be taken in more than one way -- the "instead of us" being only one.) Thus the purpose of His death would be a demonstration of the character of God. It's a demonstration calculated to win our hearts and our devotion.

Some of our well-known preachers and teachers have focused on one or another metaphor almost to the exclusion of others. Graham Maxwell, for instance, focuses on Christ as the Exemplar and the demonstrator of God's self-denying love, avoiding reference to the substitutionary aspect of Christ's death.

But the Bible writers use all these ways to describe the work of Christ.

No one metaphor is complete in itself. One could say that the Law of God demands the death of the sinner, and Christ as the Author of the Law, gives His life instead of ours. That is a substitution that demonstrates the inviolability of the sacredness of the Law of God. It is not a "payment" to anyone.

There's also another way to look at the question: When God created man, He made Him ruler of this planet and gave him the potential for eternal life on the condition of obedience. Man (in the generic sense) chose to believe Satan's lie, rather than God's truth, thus choosing another master -- the originator of sin. It is then that Satan became the "prince of this world," as Christ called him. Satan claimed man as his own, and man needed redemption (the original meaning includes the necessity of buying back through a payment), and Christ paid the price of redemption in order to set man free from slavery to Satan. (By the way, a study of the story of Ruth and Boaz brings out some beautiful truths of redemption.)

Notice that it is impossible to make any one of these metaphors "walk on all fours," so to speak. To do so for any one would lead us into a matching heresy. Human words used by Bible writers to explain the mystery of redemption are not altogether adequate for the divine plan. And I understand that even in eternity we will forever be learning new aspects of this ultimate demonstration of God's infinite love.

Well, Tom, I wasn't just referring to "most reasonably intelligent people" but to such people who would actually read and study the words of the Bible -- as I assumed you might understand.

The immortal-soul teaching entered the Christian church via Platonism. It is not based on a "clar reading" of the relevant texts. (Unfortunately some of our translations include the translator bias.)

And it is easily demonstrable from the biblical text alone that the Sabbath was not "done away with." Support for Sunday sacredness, by contrast, comes from extr-biblical sources.

A second reading of the story of Peter's vision makes clear the point was not that unclean foods were now "clean." It furthermore makes no sense logically -- especially in light of today's scientific knowledge.

Perhaps I should add as well, that it's not possible to persuade anyone of truth of a spiritual nature simply on the basis of argument. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict of truth. Yet we do have a part to play in presenting the truth in the most intelligent and attractive manner.

But what interests me more is your point in opposing my statement on the matter.

What is your position on the question of how truth is determined?

The clear reading of the written words may not be such an easy thing after all. Some people insist that the clear reading of the written words in John 6:37 is chrystal clear evidence of Gods sovereign election of some to believe and others not to believe. How can we know that this is not the clear reading of the word? Could your words fall back on us?

I see Tom had already spelled it out.

(long post warning)

Nice posts, Inga, both of them (I'm speaking specifically of the ones addressed to me). I'll deal in greater detail with the one regarding the purpose of Christ's death and metaphors in a later post, as it will take some time to treat carefully (However, I will share some thoughts here too). Regarding the other post, I was reacting to your post, which hit me as not "quite right." I was trying to figure out what about it me didn't seem right.

I guess there are a couple of points that hit me as not quite right. The first has to do with "words" and the Word. Salvation is about knowing a Person. The words direct us to the Person.

I think Jesus expressed the truth very clearly when He said, "You search the Scriptures, because you think in them you have eternal life, but they are they which testify of Me." You wrote:



First of all, Jesus, in His statement "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life" was not directing anyone to written words at all, but to His words, which were spoken. That some of them were written down is immaterial. *All* of Jesus' words (including the ones He speaks today!) are spirit and life, which was His point.

So your argument that Jesus' statement "brings us back to the written words as an objective standard of truth" is an invalid argument. This doesn't mean that the conclusion you stated is false, by the way. You can have an invalid argument with a true conclusion.

However, that your argument is invalid is a somewhat minor issue. The real issue has to do with the rest of what you wrote. In particular, this question is very interesting:



Here's something from the Spirit of Prophecy:



If you had something like is mind, then the answer is "yes," we can have another god by rejecting the truth, by favoring our "own reality" as you put it. However, we cannot just throw our reality away, can we? It is, after all, our reality, which is to say, the way we perceive things.

To give a specific example, in regards to penal substitution, your reality, the way you perceive things, is that this is a Biblical metaphor. You do not see yourself rejecting the clear written words of Scripture by laying hold of this doctrine, which to me is clearly contrary to everything Jesus ever said or taught. It seems to me that this rejection of the "clear reading of the written words" is quite subjective. I didn't find your response to this point to be very persusive. There are millions of Christians who believe the soul is immortal, and that this is the "clear reading of the written words." It isn't clear to them.

It seems to me that the same reason they believe the soul is immortal is the same reason you believe in penal substitution. Rather than looking at what Scripture actually teaches, arguments which have been heard, given by others, are repeated, as opposed to a candid investigation as to what Scripture actually teaches.

For example, in regards to penal substitution, surely one would expect that somewhere Jesus would have explained the purpose for His death. So where does Jesus, in any way, teach that His death was for enabling God to be able to legally forgive us, or in order to propitiate His wrath? There is no such teaching. Paul is interpreted in such a way as to have him teaching something Jesus did not teach. I don't believe this is the case. I don't believe Paul was teaching anything different than Jesus; indeed, Paul knew the teachings of Christ, and was simply expressing them in his own words.

Ok, so let's get to the question which you most recently posed to me regarding my position on how truth is determined. I think what happens is we all have our own paradigms, and God constantly challenges those paradigms. He is constantly hitting us with new truth, new ideas. It's not so easy for us to know what the truth is, and God doesn't expect it to be so for us. By meditating upon Scripture, thinking about new ideas, and I would say above all considering what the new idea says in regards to God's character, we eventually come to a conclusion regarding the new idea.

I'll give an example. When I was studying to become an Adventist, I believed in an immortal soul. There are many texts in Scripture which apparently teach this. There are also many texts which apparently (and actually) teach that the soul is not immortal. So what criteria should I use to figure out which doctrine was correct? Weigh the texts, and see which side weighs more?

For every text one side uses, the other side has an explanation as to why the "clear reading" doesn't apply. For example, we explain that the comma was inserted in Christ's statement, that "forever" doesn't mean what we are accustomed to its meaning, that in Lazarus and the Rich Man Jesus made use of the fact that His hearers believed the soul was immortal in order to teach an unrelated truth, and so on. It's unavoidable that on any controverted subject there will be texts which appear to be clearly saying one thing, and other texts which clearly be saying another. This isn't a fault of Sctipure, but an inevitability, I would say primiarly based on our humanity, and the difficulty we have in understanding what God is trying to communicate to us.

Back to my dillemma. As I thought about it, it occured to me that the idea that God would eternally punish the wicked by burning them didn't seem to harmonize with what I knew of God's character. That was a very important point to me. It just didn't make sense. My paradigm was changing. That which I had accepted without questioning (hell was eternal), I started to question, and finally rejected. This is how I see the process working.

To summarize:

a)We have a paradigm.
b)That paradigm gets challenged.
c)We respond to the challenge.

When the response to c) is either our paradigm changes, or is enhanced, then we grow from the experience. If we simply reject out of hand new ideas because they don't conform with "our reality," (which is to say, our understanding of the clear reading of Scripture) then we don't.

I think I'll answer the second post point by point.



This is certainly true.



These are sort of orthogonal concepts. "Propitiation" has to do with appeasement, gaining the favor of someone. "Substitution" need not be for the purpose of propitiating. That is, Jesus' death can be substitutionary without there being any propitiation involved.

By the way, I assume you're thinking of Romans 3:25? "Propitiation" isn't the term used, but "hilasterion" which means "mercy seat." Young's literal translation has:



Wycliffe has:



That's pretty interesting. "Rightwiseness" is a cool word.

The NIV has



which seems like a good translation. To read "propitiation" into "mercy seat" is by no means necessary.



There's a couple of inaccuracies here. First of all, Christ's revealing the Father is not just one of the things that Christ did, which is how it appears to me you are putting things. EGW writes:



So we shouldn't understand Christ's work of revealing the Father as simply one of the things Christ came to do. It was *the* thing He came to do, and the other things He did fit within that context.

A second inaccuracy is to say that Maxwell focussed on Christ as our Exemplar. I think this is very inaccurate, and would be interested in any evidence you could provide to substantiate this claim.

A third inaccuracy is that Maxwell ignores the substitutionary aspects of Christ's death. This is confusing substitution with satisfaction, or propitiation. You can have substitution without satisfaction or propitiation. Substitution simply means that Christ died in our place, and this is indeed Biblical, and to the best of my knowledge, no one denies this.



This is true. They do use the idea of Christ as Example, as Revealer, as Substitute. The question is if they use the idea of Christ as one who obtains satisfaction, as one who propitiates God's wrath so that God can legally forgive us.



This is a red herring. No one claims this.



I'm not sure what your purpose was here. Is there some point you were making that you thought I would disagree with?

In regards to satisfaction/penal substitution, I see the following problems:

a)It is contrary to the teachings of Christ. Christ did not teach that God needed Him (Christ) to do something in order for Him (God) to be able to legally forgive us. He did not teach that satisfaction was necessary before forgiveness could be granted. In fact, He taught the opposite on several occasions.

b)Historically these ideas did not exist until a thousand years after Scripture was written. The Eastern Orthodox church, because it split off from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm's influence, has never held to these ideas. They ask, and rightly so, why it was not taught by any of the early fathers if it is Scriptural.

c)Another historical problem is that in the time of Paul, sacrifice simply did not have the meaning that those who interpret him give to it. That is, no culture viewed sacrifice as a legal necessity in order for God to be able to forgive. Romans 12:1 sets out the idea of sacrifice as it was understood by everyone.

d)It portrays a picture of God's character which is out of character with what we see revealed in Christ. When Christ was about to be crucified, He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." The character of God is that He freely forgives, not that He demands payment.

Much more could be added, but I'll stop here, as I'm probably already trying your patience. Thanks for your contributions, Inga.

Tom, I have urgent "real-life" matters to attend to, thus don't have time for a detailed reply. Not sure I would reply if I had the time.

You wrote:


It would be more pleasant to dialogue with you if you did not expect to argue with the content of all posts in reply to yours. This is not a battle field.

When I essentially agree with you, you ask "what the purpose" was!!

It would be so much nicer if we could view it as a conversation in which we explore truth together.

Just FYI, I'm a fan of Graham Maxwell and have probably listened to many hundreds of hours of tapes. My remarks were in regard to his major emphasis. I was not accusing him of heresy, as your response to my post would imply. (Suggestion: Try putting the best construction on the words of another poster.)

If/when I get back to this board, I shall probably avoid replying to you. Since you are posting in so many threads that may mean that I shall do my posting elsewhere.

Blessings,
Inga

Perhaps we could have a study on what more exactly Jesus did teach about His own death?

Inga, I asked you a question! I don't know what the purpose of the paragraphs I was asking about was. That's why I asked. I just flat out guessed you were wanting to tell me something you thought I didn't know. That's a very common thing people do.

I apologize if I guessed wrong. I certainly didn't mean to offend you.



I've apparently offended you in something I wrote. I'm sorry about that.



I asked that because I didn't understand what your purpose was. I still don't. Was it to agree with me? What was your purpose?



I do view these discussions as an opportunity to explore truth together, which is why I wrote what I did about paradigms.



I don't know why you would take my remarks as your accusing him of heresy. I pointed out some things you wrote that appeared to me to be inaccurate, and I stated why. I stated I would be interested in evidence for your statements, and I still am.

As a fan of Maxwell, I think you would agree that my response to your statements is right along the lines of what Maxwell would do in a similar situation, which is to ask for evidence to support a point of view.



It will be hard to carry on an exploration of truth together if you do not respond to my replies. If you will tell me how you would like me to discuss things with you, and what sort of things (examples please!) you don't like, I would be happy to oblige.

There are many things that MM and I disagree about, and several years ago we brought out some things we found objectionable in the writing of the other. Certain ways of phrasing things that we found objectionable. We have tailored our way of expression to not be offensive to the other. Occasionally we still step on each other's toes, and either I'll object about something, or the other will, and we'll apologize and carry on. We've had very lengthy dialogs for years.

I'm mentioning this because if you're interested in exploring truth, so am I, and I'm happy to adjust my form of expression so that it's agreeable to you, as I have for MM.



This seems a bit draconian. Here are the top 12 threads being discussed now.

1.Who are God's chosen?
2.Is Lifting hands OK in church?
3.Diaster preparedness
4.This thread
5.The flood thread
6.Can I offer you a steak.
7.Sermons and EGW.
8.Shades of Gray.
9.New Adventist Forum
10. Interview with LPK.
11.Maritime Conference News and Arrangements
12.Mind of Christ.

Of these, most I have not posted even one comment (specifically I don't believe I have posted anything at all for 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11). So of the top 12 threads I've only posted at all in 3 of them, and in one of them (the flood one) I've only made a couple of short posts.

So to say that you will post elsewhere because I am posting in so many threads doesn't seem fair.

It's not fair to me, because I'm not posting in so many threads.

It's not fair to those who would get a blessing from your posts.

And it's not fair to you yourself because I expect you get a blessing from posting here.

At any given time there's usually only 2 or 3 topics that I'm active in, so if you're goal is to avoid posting where I'm posting, that shouldn't be hard to do.

I'm a bit hurt by your response. Evidently I've written something which offended you rather severely, it seems to me. I'm very sorry about that.

Tom, I accept that you didn't mean to offend, and I'm sorry to have given you cause to feel hurt. My last paragraph was probably a bit extreme.

I've expressed myself clearly in a PM, and I see no reason to repeat anything here.

Looking back at your reply to me, I will repeat, however, that it would be more pleasant if you would engage in a friendly dialogue here, rather than viewing all posts as the argument of "the opposition." (e.g. "red herring," "Is there some point you were making you thought I would disagre with?" and others)

It would also help if you would not set up straw men -- i.e. expand on what someone wrote and then knock down the expanded argument.

Rather than arguing about what Graham Maxwell does or does not believe, I recommend to you and others this article:
Why Did Jesus Have to Die? Here Maxwell explicitly spells out his view of the atonement, and he includes the substitutionary aspect, as he seldom does in his lectures.

For all who read this topic, I'd like to recommend the free lectures available on Dr. Maxwell's site:
God in All 66. In this series he walks the hearer through the Bible and highlights what each book says about the character of our loving God. If you've never heard Graham Maxwell speak, you're in for a treat. Few have as comforting and loving a voice as he has -- a voice to match the message of reconciliation that he preaches.

It's wonderful Sabbath listening, as are the other lectures on his site.

A Happy Sabbath to all!

Inga

Posted by mistake.

Ok, thanks Inga. I responded to the PM, and agree that that's fine.

I'm certain we were misunderstanding each other. Sorry about that.

I realize you are busy. When you have the time to post, I'll be glad to see what you have to say. From your comments, it sounds like we're on the same wave length.

MM: So, sinners will die a second time because of what God will do, right?


MM: In the same way "God does something artificial" to keep sinners alive now so that they can play their part in the GC, one could say He will do something artificial to keep them alive in the lake of fire so that they can suffer punishment in proportion to their sinfulness.

I have no idea why you want to think this way. Isn't it more pleasant to think that people die because of what they do?

From Scripture we read, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." "The wages of sin is death." "The sting of death is sin." and so forth. Sin is to death as the acorn is to the oak.

From the Spirit of Prophecy we read:



This is nice. God is the life-giver. Sin results in suffering and death, inevitably. Not because of God, but in spite of God. God has no desire that anyone should suffer or die.



God does something to allow people the opportunity to be saved. God is good. He doesn't to evil. He is not cruel. He wouldn't do such a awful thing as to keep people artificially alive so that he could cause them excruciating pain.

It appears that you think it is necessary that people suffer physical pain in order to be punished for what they have done. Why do you think this?

It seems to me that both of you -- MM & TE -- are creating polarization with your arguments. The things you both say are not mutually exclusive.

God is the Author and Sustainer of life. Creatures that attempt to live independently from Him would automatically die unless God "artificially" kept them alive.

God has kept Satan and his angels alive so that all the universe might see things as they really are -- that sin results in death.

God kept Adam and Eve alive that they might repent and develop mature characters through the hard experiences of their lives.

God keeps us sinners alive so that we might develop characters that are safe to take to heaven.

Who are we to argue how long God should keep unrepentant sinners alive -- either now or in the judgment by fire?

If God is sovereign, His withdrawal of life-sustaining power results in death -- no matter when/how He does it.

Let's look at a human parallel: Someone is on life support in a hospital and cannot live without it. Let's say you went into the hospital and pulled the plug. Will you not be accused of killing the person who was on life support?

Biblical writers often express that God actively did what we might say He only "allowed." Moses says God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Yet in another place we read that Pharaoh hardened his heart.

Should we demand "better" expressions of posters on this forum than the Bible writers themselves used?

Item:
God withdraws His life-sustaining power = God kills.

Even the Bible says so! In fact, the Bible chronicles God's judging/killing by drowning, by fire, by hail stones and various other means. Prophecy tells us that, in the last judgment, He will kill by fire, even though He could just as well just stop keeping sinners alive.

Can't we just let the Bible words stand?

I agree with this.

The question is, what do the Bible words mean? What is God actually doing? What is actually going on? These questions are important to understanding God's character.

For example, MM believes that God will supernaturally keep people alive during the judgment so that they will experience pain, as this is necessary in order for them to pay for their sins; justice demands this.

Would God really do such a thing? Is God really like this? I think these are very important questions.



I've made this point many times. I think it's a key point, perhaps *the* key point in understanding these types of questions. God humbly accepts the responsibility for what happens in His universe.

As Christ put it:



The bedrock question is, I believe, "What is God really like?" The answer is, I believe, that God is just like Jesus Christ.

TE: I have no idea why you want to think this way. Isn't it more pleasant to think that people die because of what they do?

MM: It's both, Tom. It's take the unveiled glory of God and unpardoned sins to kill sinners a second time.

TE: God does something to allow people the opportunity to be saved.

MM: This doesn't apply to the fallen angels. God is keeping them artificially alive, too. In the same way God kept the three Hebrew worthies artificially alive in the fiery furnace, He will keep the unsaved sinners artificially alive in the lake of fire until they have suffered punishment in proportion to their sinfulness.

The fact God keeps sinners artificially alive is what makes it possible for sinners to commit more than one sin. Otherwise they would die after the first sin, and there would be no reason to keep them artificially alive in order for them to suffer in proportion to that one sin.

But because they have committed hundreds of sins, it is necessary for God to keep them artificially alive in order to suffer punishment for each and every sin they committed (instead of dying prematurely for the first sin they committed).

TE: It appears that you think it is necessary that people suffer physical pain in order to be punished for what they have done. Why do you think this?

MM: Physical pain is only part of it. They will suffer all aspects of punishment.

Inga: God withdraws His life-sustaining power = God kills.

MM: This is only part of the equation. He also punishes them according to their sinfulness, and then He "pulls the plug" and they die.

This is to let MM know that I sent him a couple of PMs, which hasn't anything to do with this topic.

Questions.

1.Why is this necessary?
2.Does each sin have a certain amount of pain associated with it? So that if you tell a white lie you have to burn for say 15 seconds, but a really big sin, like adultery, might mean several hours or a day of burning?



I'm interested in the idea that God supernaturally keeps people alive so that He can burn them alive in order to pay for their sins by suffering the physical pain of being burned alive. I find it unspeakably incredible that anyone could believe this to be true.

Whether or not God artificially keeps sinners alive in the lake of fire in order to suffer in proportion to their sinfulness I cannot say. It makes sense. And, yes, each sin receives punishment according to its sinfulness. Not all sins receive the same punishment.

As I said earlier - "The fact God keeps sinners artificially alive is what makes it possible for sinners to commit more than one sin. Otherwise they would die after the first sin, and there would be no reason to keep them artificially alive in order for them to suffer in proportion to that one sin.

But because they have committed hundreds of sins, it is necessary for God to keep them artificially alive in order to suffer punishment for each and every sin they committed (instead of dying prematurely for the first sin they committed)."

The following insights confirm these observations:

Matthew
16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Luke
12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not [himself], neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes].
12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few [stripes]. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

2 Corinthians
5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

Revelation
2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

4T 249
Do not for a moment deceive yourself with the thought that your sin will not bring its merited punishment. Your transgressions will be visited with the rod, because you have had the light, yet have walked directly contrary to it. "That servant, which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to His will, shall be beaten with many stripes." {4T 249.1}

5T 160
Ministers of Christ, I admonish you: "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine." Do not excuse sins in yourselves which you reprove in others. If you preach on meekness and love, let these graces be exemplified in your own life. If you urge others to be kind, courteous, and attentive at home, let your own example give force to your admonitions. As you have received greater light than others, so is your responsibility increased. You will be beaten with many stripes if you neglect to do your Master's will. {5T 160.1}

EW 294, 295
Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, "Amen!" {EW 294.2}

GC 660
It is at this time that, as foretold by Paul, "the saints shall judge the world." 1 Corinthians 6:2. In union with Christ they judge the wicked, comparing their acts with the statute book, the Bible, and deciding every case according to the deeds done in the body. Then the portion which the wicked must suffer is meted out, according to their works; and it is recorded against their names in the book of death. {GC 660.4}

GC 673
The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Proverbs 11:31. They "shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts." Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch--Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. {GC 673.1}

MM, the texts you cited just prove that sin will be punished, which I of course agree with. Where you and I differ is that I believe the suffering that takes place is a natural result to the evil committed and the light rejected, not an artificial result.

That is, I believe sinners who have sinned more and rejected more light will suffer more when that sin is revealed, and the light that is rejected is made clear, because they've committed more sin and rejected more light. It simply has to be that way. God's not doing something to make it that way; it *is* that way.

This suffering is due to the impact of revealing truth to the conscience. Jesus refers to this as "weeping and gnashing of teeth." Ellen White talks about this in "The Great Controversy" especially, as well as other places.

That God is like fire is brought out in many places in Scripture, and Ellen White uses the same imagery. As the light of truth comes upon the conscience, it burns like fire. Seeing God is like seeing fire. It's blinding, like looking at the sun. Seeing sin in its true bearing causes suffering. Again, EGW speaks to this in detail. I'm assuming you're familiar with this, so I won't cite references here. I'll just mention this one, a familiar one:



This brings out that what's involved is not literal fire, because the same fire which slays the wicked "imparts life" to the righteous. This fire is God. Being in the presence of God is life for the righteous, but death for the wicked. It's pleasant for one group, and unpleasant for the other. The group for whom it is unpleasant voluntarily chooses to be excluded from heaven (this is discussed GC 541-543).

Your idea, as I understand it, is that if God did not do something artificial to keep man alive, then man would die immediately upon committing a sin. You say if that happened, then there would be no need for further punishment, and I agree, but feel constrained to point out that according to how you view things your idea is inconsistent with your own beliefs. This is because, according to your beliefs, before dying the person who committed the sin would have to be punished for the sin. They would still have to be burned alive for that one sin.

Going on, your idea is that since God does something to keep men alive, even though they sin, they keep accumulating more and more punishment for themselves because of all the sins they do for which they haven't been punished. I agree with this too, although I don't see that there is anything artificial in their punishment. It's not that God keeps track of everything they did, and determines how much burning each sin requires, and then supernaturally keeps them alive so each one can be burned for the appropriate amount.



This looks like backing away from the position you've been holding until now. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying you're not sure if God keeps people supernaturally alive so that they can be burned for an appropriate amount to be punished for their sins. If so, I'm glad you're not sure about it. I hope you come full face, and reject the idea. You say, "it makes sense," but it doesn't. Just think of how awful it makes God to be.

Can you imagine keeping your own son or daughter alive so they could suffer more pain by fire in order to be punished for their bad deeds? We are far more dear to God than our loved ones are to us. He doesn't treat anyone worse that we would.

Sinful humans are preserved alive after sinning by God's grace alone: his kindness keeps them alive, to make time for them to respond to his drawing mercy.

The sight of the living God doesn't instantaneously slay the wicked: Revelation portrays them as having enough time to "cry out to the rocks" to fall on them - the length of time it takes for them to die of shock isn't indicated: perhaps it is as dramatic and slow as we can easily imagine it should be, given their stubborn history and their situation and what they deserve.

Equally, the judgement day of Revelation has a big procession of the wicked under Satan in one last futile attempt to defeat God - pride just doesn't give up, does it?! Yes, separation from the source of life results in death - and repented of sin is such a separation in the end. It is more than grace for the wicked to be kept alive, though: after probation closes, and for those doomed since Lucifer's fall and defeat in heaven, the wicked are sustained by something other than saving grace:...What about God's sovereign will itself: he preserves them to prove his glory true by their own actions, as his love is so inclined. Too many points in one paragraph perhaps!

Isn't it in the GC where the situation of Satan suffering in hell the longest before annihilation is stated: that is suffering the full weight of guilt which the wicked take back from their Saviour to join the wicked angels for whom he did not die. Guilt in its fulness fills one with fear (I can reason theoretically!), but what kills in that situation would be more than ordinary human shock: actual fire is referred to in the Bible and SOP, so how/where else does the wrath of God express itself against sin and unrepentant sinners/evil angels?

Actual fire is referred to in that the earth will be purified by fire, and there will be a lake of fire. We know from the flood that there was a tremendous amount of water underneath the earth's crust, which is far thinner proportionately than an egg shell. The crust lost its integrity, the water burst forth to the atmosphere, and fell to the earth in the form of a deluge. We know there is molten lava under the earth's crust now. It's easy to envision the same thing happening, with fire instead of water this time.

However, this cannot be the fire that kills the wicked. We know for several reasons.

First of all, we are told that the wicked will suffer in proportion to their deeds. Literal fire would kill the wicked equally quickly.

Secondly, we are told:



That which slays the wicked gives life to the righteous. The same idea is expressed in Isaiah 33:



God is the everlasting fire. He is the one who gives life to the righteous. The wicked cannot abide in His presence, because in clinging to sin, the glory of God, which destroys sin, destroys them.

It's clear in all this that literal fire is not being referred to.

The final reason I'll mention here that literal fire is not the means by which the wicked are made to suffer for their sins is that this idea is barbaric and cruel. It is utterly foreign to God's character. God gave His all for the wicked (that's us, you know!) and His love for us doesn't change because He's been rejected (in fact, His love is fire, but that's another study).

When Jesus was urged to send fire down from heaven to destroy the wicked He replied, "You know not of what spirit you are, for the Son of Man came not to destroy man's lives, but to save them." God's spirit does not change.

This does not mean the wicked will not be destroyed, they will be, but God's attitude in this is the same as Jesus expressed when He wept over Jerusalem, the same as God expressed in Hosea crying in anguish, "How can I give you up?!"

God's wrath for sin is expressed in His weeping. "Wrath" is anger, and the reason God is angry at sin is because of what it does to His children, whom He loves so much.

One final quote:



The destruction of the wicked is not an arbitrary or imposed penalty, but the result of their own choice. Because of their own decisions, the very presence of God becomes a consuming fire.

Of course, Christ is God!

Remember, though, that Christ drove the buyers and sellers out of the temple, and he called the Pharisees snakes and vipers.

He didn't just heal the sick and bless the children.

I still say, "Can't we just let the Bible words stand?"

When we get more specific than God revealed we cause unnecessary disagreement and may fall into error. (Not saying that you are, but that the danger is there.)

Thanks for your comments Inga.



All Christians, well, almost all (all non-Arians or semi-Arians), believe that Christ is God, but, unfortunately very few believe Christ is like God, which is pretty ironic, when you think about it.



He cursed the fig tree. There's that one too.

When Christ spoke against the Pharisees, the Spirit of Prophecy tells us there were tears in His voice. If we picture God, when he speaks against people as having tears in His voice, then we have the right picture, and Christ's so doing serves to do what all His actions served to do, which is to reveal God.

I'll discuss the chasing of the money-changers some other time, if desired, but I find the "though" in your comment very interesting. Remember "though" that Christ drove the buyers and sellers out of the temple. The implication seems to me to be that Christ was here doing something not like Himself, but rather like God, if I'm being clear. (If not, let me know, and I'll elaborate). Have I misunderstood things here? If so, please clarify things for me.



Acts says that "He went about doing God." He was doing good as much in speaking against the Pharisees as He was by blessing the children. Everything He did was good, and everything He did revealed God, who is good.



For one thing, the Bible is an Eastern book, written centuries ago by people in a completely different culture than ours. There's quite a lot that needs to be understood for us to rightly divide the word of truth.



I appreciate your qualifying your remarks here.

I don't think specificity is the problem so much as understanding. God has had throughout history an extraordinarily difficult time in communicating what He wants to in a way that can be understood. The problem is not His, of course, but the problem is there. Even holy angels, we are told in the chapter "It Is Finished" in "The Desire of Ages" had things they did not understand until after the cross. This goes to show just how difficult the Old Testament God was to understand.

Satan is a very crafty foe, able to misrepresent in so many different ways. But when Jesus came and lived amongst us in the flesh, and went through Gethsemane and Calvary, Satan's deceptions were defeated. God as He truly is was manifest, and that light forever settled the Great Controversy in heaven and in the unfallen worlds. There's just one more world to go.

I notice your two points against traditional teachings on hell are arbitrary and cruel. No-one's suggesting arbitrary, for "the wages of sin is death": that's direct cause and effect, legally speaking. As for cruel, dying by burning is cruel, wherever the combustion comes from, humanly speaking, and there'll be humans there!

Fire under the earth's crust must be involved somehow, if not merely burning up the elements above the ground: the earth itself is purified of sin, remember, above and below ground. Then again, how much larva would be left after the 2nd Coming for use in the judgement fire is questionable and improbable.

Fire burns too quickly?...Since proportional punishment is involved, fire's known destructive heat is not necessarily relevant. It says, "Fire came down from God out of heaven," but the judgement was first, with the wicked of all time in the presence of God's own glory: seems sin survives in God's consuming glory for purposes of judgement. Yes, God's glory is a major part of the wicked's destruction, even an act of mercy given their mental torture at losing eternal life, but some sort of natural fire belongs, too, as much as sin is natural to this earth given the Fall. That is fire from both angles.

Cruelty isn't objectionable, given the proportionality of punishment and the full weight of guilt on the mind is psychiatric torture to the likely extent of going insane for it is living the fear of eternal separation from God: such suffering is the wrath of God Christ suffered for all men which none need suffer for himself by unbelief, and that suffering is by scientific definition worse cruelty than being burned alive. It is punishment due sin unrepented of.

You're defining punishment by natural fire as arbitrary due to God's character, but you aren't considering the nature and end of sin itself: how it is to be punished. That punishment does involve God's sorrow, but also his wrath, and thus all natural elements of earth shall be involved, including a lake of fire and last of all death shall have its part. The nature of eternal death isn't so much the time it takes or the means thereof, but the lack of a resurrection, on top of purifying the earth.

There'll be burning and some part of it will be natural, which isn't arbitrary, but part of the process, eh?

Tom, are you assuming that judgment and punishment are not aspects of love?

(The way I see it, biblical love is very different from the warm fuzzy stuff that passes for "love" nowadays.)

The Bible characterizes God as a God of mercy *and* justice. And it seems to me that, somehow, in the final judgment, the sense of justice that God has instilled in all of us will be satisfied. The Bible calls it God's "strange act," but it will be done.

I see your arguments as quite "Maxwellian," but it is in this area that I cannot go along with Graham Maxwell. It is true that in the overall picture, sin destroys, and sinners would self-destruct without God's "interference" to keep them alive. However, it is also true that the Bible records specific instances where God actively destroyed people (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah), and it seems to me that in the final judgment that's exactly what God will be do for the very last time. As He eradicated Sodom and Gomorrah to stop their evil influence, so He will actively destroy sin and sinners on this earth to eradicate sin from the universe.

If the wicked were only destroyed by His Presence, then there would be no need for a second resurrection. The wicked are already dead. They are brought to life specifically for judgment. After their resurrection they demonstrate that their rebellion is utterly incurable because they will try to conquer the city of God with God Himself present in it.

That's when God administers the final judgment by fire. And judgment, to be just, must make a difference between the weak of faith and the abandoned sinner and bold rebel.

Speaking of justice, how do you reconcile God's *justice* with your idea that the destruction of the wicked is exactly the same for everyone, no matter how horribly they sinned? (e.g.according to you, the little girl who was raped by her father and thus could never trust a Father God gets exactly the same 'judgment' as the criminally self-centered father who raped her.)

It seems to me that what "arbitrary" means is exactly what's being suggested. Here's Webster's primary definition for "arbitrary".



Ellen White writes that the destruction of the wicked is *not* due to an arbitrary act of power of God, but rather as the result of their own choice. In DA 764 she makes this point over and over and over again. The death of the wicked is the consequence of their own decisions. It's not a punishment that's imposed by God; something that wouldn't happen if God didn't impose a punishment upon them. That's precisely her point.



I agree, which is why I don't think they die by burning. God is not cruel.

Perhaps I should just quote from DA 764:



God is the consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love destroys the wicked. This is obviously not referring to death by burning.



"Larva"? Ha ha. I'm not sure what you're wanting to say here in saying "how much lava would be left ... is ... improbable. This doesn't seem to make sense to me. "How much" seems to be asking a question. It's speaking of an undefined quantity. Then you say this undefined quantity is "improbable." I'm not seeing what you're trying to say here.



My point is that the wicked suffer proportionally for their sin because the punishment is inherent in the sin itself. The punishment is not something arbitrarily imposed by God.

The relevance of the destructiveness of fire is that the wicked will be resurrected with bodies such as we have, not resurrection bodies such as the righteous will have. Therefore literal fire would destroy them in a matter of seconds. In order for them not to be burned alive, but rather suffer for many hours or many days, God would have to somehow supernaturally keep them alive, so they could be burned alive for days. This is unspeakably cruel. This type of behavior, under international law, is defined as torture. Cruelty is Satanic.



Again, literal fire would destroy a person in a matter of seconds. Also, Ellen White writes that the glory of Him who is love destroys them. Also that the light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, slays the wicked. Clearly this is not referring to literal fire.

If the death of the wicked is caused by the glory of God, then it is not caused by literal fire. But literal fire would instantly kill a person, which gets us back to the scenario of God's supernaturally keeping people alive so He can torture them.



Cruelty is Satanic!



(sorry to cut your sentence off in the middle, but it was so long, I didn't see an alternative)



Again, cruelty is Satanic. If we have a view of the judgment that involves God acting in a way which is Satanic, IMO we need to rethink things.

Your argument here looks to be that it is OK for God to act cruelly. But cruelty is Satanic, and God is never Satanic. GC 541-543 brings out that the exclusion of the wicked from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and that God acts in mercy and love in allowing them their choice.



I agree. But this punishment is inherent in sin. It is not a cruel action caused by God.



No, I'm not defining punishment by natural fire as arbitrary due to God's character. Natural fire as punishment for sin would be arbitrary regardless of God's character (unless the wicked caused the fire themselves. There are some who believe this. While it makes the punishment non-arbitrary, which I believe is correct, I don't see how it accounts for proportionality in their punishment).



In Scripture, God's wrath is His giving the wicked over to the result of their sin. This is exactly what happens in the judgment. Again, as Ellen White points out, the exclusion of the wicked is voluntary with themselves. They do not wish to be in heaven.



The wicked die as a result of the light of the glory of God. They will not be burned alive as a means of punishment. God does not torture and kill people because they do not do what He says. IMO this is a horrible view of God to have, which can only do harm to one's own spirit. I can't see how it can but cause us to fear God, and incline us to be hard-hearted.

DA 764 brings out, again and again, that death is the inevitable result of sin. God is seeking to save us from sin, and the suffering and death which result from sin. Sin is the cause of these things, not God. We mustn't have the idea that by faith in Christ we are saved from God.

Thank you, Inga, for your comments just now: I await Tom's response to yourself.

Tom, you do realise we've switched well & truly to your other topic about the wrath and vengeance of "an offended God". Getting back to this topic's topic anytime soon?

Sorry, Tom: you don't appear to understand Webster's reference to judicial discretion, let alone the meaning of discretion - since you're glued so tightly to the rule of logic premised on immutable agape, leaving little if no room for the rest of God's attitude to Satan & sinners once saving grace and the great controversy are over.

Hopefully clarifying your reference to "what's being suggested" - who, what, when are you referring to? - won't change my understanding of your entire post.

First a better, general (primary) definition of "arbitrary", from Oxford, for Webster's definition you cited is too contextual, is not a primary definition, and misses the real thing - it appears you're good at maths, but not English :
Capricious and despotic is what Ellen White was alluding to by arbitrariness in your excerpt from her, not judicial discretion!!! God is obviously not being unfair, is her point: that should be pretty clear in her GC book.

The great controversy ended by the marriage of the lamb at the close of probation (yes, that's the event for anyone surprised by that reference... ) lays open to heaven and the watching universe what everyone shall see opened to them in the sky above at the day of judgement: lives condemned to eternal death for rejecting divine grace. The punishment following that judgement ceremony is neither capricious nor unloving, is indeed merciful, but is also proportionate to the lives lived, in the discretion of God - by the judgement of the saints during the millenium, "according to their works". And you're happy with punishment lasting longer for some than others so long as they are suffering the glory of God and not actual fire?

Judicial discretion is divine wisdom itself in action against the wicked after all information is revealed that has been recorded since iniquity was found in Lucifer and all wicked men and angels know that justice demands their punishment by the rule of law: where is the justice element in your position?? Prolonging the suffering of many proportionate to their deeds must happen just by God's glory? So he can't use fire, that's your basic point on combustion?

Cruelty is a matter of perception by us, not a matter purely of personality - Satan being bad and God being good. Part of justice is the emotional issue of catharsis: Both for the saints and for God, or is God not emotional against sin? Since we are in his image, are we to want catharsis but he's not?? This isn't retribution: catharsis is part of righteous justice, thus Jesus drove out the money changers and traders from the temple courts with a whip!...

The only problem with sin being inherently destructive of the wicked in the end, including proportionate punishment, is that sin in and of itself is not just!! - proportional punishment being the cathartic portion of justice. My character of God reference last time was to the question of fire or glory of God: this time, his character reference is to his wrath against sin and sin & sinners' proportional punishment in terms of his justice.

Thus, whether or not actual fire assists God's glory by his design in the judgement of hell, his justice personally prolongs the suffering: the sanctuary service tells us that, while the Lord's goat, the Lamb of God, suffered our eternal punishment for us, as us, the scape goat symbolises Satan's punishment of dying of starvation and loneliness. There is thus an element of torture in the punishment suffered by the wicked for their sins, according to the justice of God.

A punishment like hell fire is "imposed"?? You mean actual fire doesn't belong, with/from God, for sin? How do you perceive and portray God's justice and wrath against sin to be executed & carried out, respectively, in the judgement? Just God's glory, nothing else?

Dude! English is my native language. I understand "discretion".

The meaning of judicial discretion (which I also understand) is that the judge in a case takes all relevant matters into account, and decides upon a punishment which he deems appropriate. Depending on whether it's a repeated offense, if there were extenuating circumstances, etc., the judge may assign probation, or the maximum sentence, or something in between.

In the case of the wicked, their destruction does not take place because of God's exercising judicial discretion, but because of their own choice. In DA 764 she makes this point over and over again.

She points out that they make the decision to separate themselves from God, who alone is the source of life. Hence they die.

In speaking of Satan, next paragraph or so later, she points out that if he and his host reaped the full result of their sin, they would perish.

In regards to this tying into the other subject, it's not surprising, because if we accept the idea that Christ paid the penalty for our sin on the cross, then what that payment is (which we see in the judgment) comes into play. These two subjects go hand in hand.

If God acts arbitrarily in the judgment, then it makes sense that an arbitrary action of punishing Christ could have some effect in resolving things, but if He doesn't act arbitrarily in one place, then we wouldn't expect Him to act arbitrarily in the other.

Also, regarding this subject under discussion appearing in this topic, I tend to answer just about any questions or respond to any comments which are thrown my way. It's not a big deal to me what subjects get discussed in what topics. Personally, I try to be careful not to introduce off topic ideas, but I'll respond to whatever comes up in a thread. Whoever made the question or comment may have seen a connection (or why else did they bring it up), so that's good enough for me.



What?



Actually I'm superb at maths, and very good at English.



No, Colin, this is not at all what she is referring to. I considered the different definitions for "arbitrary" and picked the one that fit the context.

If you will look at the paragraphs cited in DA 764, you will see that your suggested definition does not fit. If her point were that God were not being capricious or despotic, she would have adduced some evidence that this was not the case. But she doesn't. Instead she argues that the destruction of the wicked is due to their own choice, a point she makes over and over again, and a point which fits the definition I cited for "arbitrary."



I wouldn't say I'm "happy" any more than God is "happy." It will be a very sad occasion.

What I've been pointing out is that the suffering of the wicked is not due to something God does to the wicked, that is, something imposed, or arbitrary, or artificial (whichever word you prefer), but is the result of their interaction with God due to how they themselves have ruined their character.

When God presents to them the circumstances of their lives, and how He loving, patiently, mercifully dealt with them, this causes them great suffering, in proportion to the light they have rejected and the sin they have committed. This is unavoidable, unless God were to avoid having a judgment altogether.



God doesn't act "against the wicked." As Ellen White points out in GC 541-543, God acts "for" the wicked, for their own good, which is consistent with God's character. God always acts in the best interest of His loved ones. Always.

The suffering of the wicked is not "prolonged." It occurs due to the light rejected and the sin committed.

That God cannot use fire isn't really the basic point, no. If one thinks of God artificially, or supernaturally, keeping people alive so that He can torture them (by whatever means), this would certainly be cruel behavior. Cruelty is Satanic.



I'm not following you here.



That sin is not just does not matter here. Sin carries with it negative consequences, and these negative consequences are proportional to the sin committed. God has no need to add imposed punishments to sin, because sin really is a bad thing that really does damage people and really does cause suffering and death.



I disagree with a couple of things here. First of all, His justice does not prolong the suffering. Quoting from GC



It's true that this was written against the doctrine of eternal torment, but the principles discussed here apply just as much to "temporary torment." God's hatred of sin is not the reason the existence of the wicked is perpetuated.

The second point I disagree with is that there is an element of torture in the punishment suffered by the wicked for their sins, according to the justice of God. Actually, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the words used here, as I could say them and mean them, but the words, I'm quite sure, would mean something very different to me.

The justice of God is allowing the wicked to receive the results of their choice, and one could well say that the wicked receive self-inflicted torture as a result of the damage they have caused themselves due to repeated rejection of God's grace. They have unfitted themselves to stand in God's presence.



No, I don't think the punishment of hell is imposed. This is already a long post, so I'll be very brief here. I can explain more fully later, if desired.

In regards to God's wrath for sin, I agree with what I have quoted in regards to what Fifield wrote regarding this. I don't have the quote readily available here, but I can try to quote it tomorrow. In brief, he said that if you want to see God's wrath for sin, look at Jesus to see Jesus' wrath for sin.

Also, God wrath in Scripture is presented as His giving up the sinner to receive the consequences of his decisions. There are several dozen examples of this in Scripture, the best known one being Romans 1 where several times Paul points out that God's wrath against unrighteousness is revealed by "giving up" the wicked. (also, it's interesting to not that this "giving up" is also used in reference to Christ; that is, God "gave Him up," and in so doing, His wrath for sin was manifest).

Regarding justice, justice in Scripture is not retributive, but restorative. The idea is to bring things back to "shalom," to their rightful place. There are many texts which bring this out. To mention just two, Zech 7:9 and Isa. 30:18 come to mind.

Of course, this brief description doesn't do justice (pun intended) to the topic.

A key point to bear in mind as we discuss the judgment is that God does not act out of character. This is an extremely vital point to understand, and one which Ellen White goes to great pains to explain in her discussion of the judgment (e.g. GC 541-543). I'll repeat a post I just wrote from the other thread which discusses this.

This is the post I was referring to as the post from the other thread that I would post here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When one gets caught in a discussion, points get made back and forth, but one's actual position can be lost in the shuffle. So I'd like to take the opportunity in this post to present a position without reference to points being discussed elsewhere in this thread. Specifically, I'd like to make some observations regarding the judgment.

I have been heavily influenced in my views by Ellen White's writings in "The Great Controversy" pages 541-543. I first read these pages many years ago and they had a profound impact on me then, and still do.

The first point that struck me was this:




I found the idea that God desires that we obey Him because we have an intelligent appreciation and admiration of His attributes of character to be very appealing.

Following this, she writes:




A number of points are made here:
1)The principles of kindness, mercy and love are manifest in the judgment.
2)God executes judgment upon the wicked for the good of all, including the wicked themselves.
3)God would make the wicked happy if they could.

Going on:




Here we see that
4)The purity, holiness, and peace of heaven is torture to the wicked.
5)The glory of God is a consuming fire to the wicked.
6)The wicked welcome destruction, as this is preferable to seeing the face of their Redeemer.
7)Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves.
8)Their exclusion from heaven is just *and merciful* on the part of God.

In considering this description, we see that God acts in harmony with His own character, the character which Jesus Christ revealed, of loving His enemies, acting in mercy, seeking to good for them, giving them what they want.

It seems that many miss the point that the wicked to not wish to be in heaven. God gives them what they want, although it causes Him great sorrow to do so.

Another point which should be brought out is that God does not act cruelly. Cruelty is Satanic. A bit earlier we read:




God does not, in the judgment, don a different character than what Jesus Christ revealed. He does not all of a sudden act cruelly, but He acts consistent with the attributes of His character of love and mercy, and acting the best interests of His loved ones. The judgment is not an event where the wicked are treated cruelly, nor given an eternal destiny against their will.

If A&E had died the same day they ate the forbidden fruit, law and justice would have been satisfied; there would have been no need to resurrect them and punish them again. There would have been no fire, no burning, no lake of fire.

Do you agree?

The plan of salvation prevents sinners from dying the instant they commit a sin.

Do you agree?

Because sinners do not die the instant they commit a sin, they live on to commit numerous sins.

Do you agree?

Law and justice (God) requires that each sin be punished according to its sinfulness.

Do you agree?

Jesus paid the price for the sins of the world. In judgment, unsaved sinners will suffer in proportion to their sinfulness.

Do you agree?

No.



No.



Yes.



Yes, but I believe the punishment is innate, not imposed.



Yes, although, again, the suffering is innate to their sin, not something arbitrarily imposed upon them.

How do your questions relate to the quote they follow?

Please explain your first two answers above. Thank you.

If they had died in the sense you are saying, it could only have been by experiencing judgment and fire. These things are the second death, which are wrapped up in sin.

The fire comes as a result of the conscience being made aware of reality. Adam and Eve could not bear to full impact of their guilt. Bearing such guilt results in death, the death which is the second death. When Christ bore our guilt, He experienced this death. ("My heart" -- which is to say, Christ's innermost thoughts and feelings; a reference to the mental anguish EGW speaks of, so great that His physical pain was hardly felt -- "melts like wax." The fire.)

When the wicked are resurrected, they will experience it. "To sin, wherever found, 'our God is a consuming fire.' Heb. 12:29.


Here's an EGW statement which brings out that Christ suffered the second death: (unless "the death which was ours" is interpreted to be something else, which I can't see what that could be)

Seems like it would take longer than an instant to die.

I agree with the idea that we only live physically because of the blessings of the plan of salvation, and that without such we would experience the second death upon sinning.

Do you agree then that A&E would not have died the first death, been resurrected, judged, suffer symbolic fire, die the second death, and then be consumed with the earth in literal fire?

BTW, that Jesus did not die the second death is evident from the fact it is the Scapegoat (Satan) that dies the second death, and from the fact Jesus resurrected Himself and is alive in heaven.

Also, where is it in the SOP where Sister White talks about the fact sinners would be unable to endure sinning without the protection afforded by the plan of salvation. Seems like she says how long they could survive sin before being consumed to death.

If innate, how, then, can we call it "punishment"? Why is it that the unveiled glory of God must be present in order for it to cause punishment?


God kept them supernaturally alive, contrary to the natural, innate effect of sinning (as you put it), so that they were able to accumulate sins. Otherwise, A&E would have died after committing the first sin, and none of us would have been born. So, if one sin is enough to cause them to die, how does God keep them alive long enough to suffer punishment for all the other sins they committed? Wouldn't they die after suffering the effects of the first sin?

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking here. You're considering some hypothetical case here, right? What's the hypothetical situation?



She doesn't say that Christ "died" the death that was ours, but that Christ "suffered" the death that was ours. I've never said that Christ "died" the second death. I've said He experienced it. EGW uses the word "suffered." Scripture uses the word "tasted."



DA 764 has the concept there. She talks about how Satan and his cohorts would perish if there were to reap the result of their sin.

There's no doubt that we owe our being alive to the grace of God. I found the way you put things to be quite negative. It was more the way you put it that I was disagreeing with than anything else.

If you put it this way, I would agree:

To the death of Christ we owe even our earthly life.

MM: What would have happened to A&E if Jesus had not implemented the POS the instant they sinned? Would they, according to your theory, have suffered guilt and shame in light of the truth and glory of God and then die? Or, would they have died the first death, been resurrected, judged, suffer symbolic fire, die the second death, and then be consumed with the earth in literal fire?


MM: Well said. I didn't realize we agreed on this point. Good to know.


MM: Okay. But I was more interested in knowing if she states how long sinners could suffer the natural consequences of sinning if unprotected by the POS. Is it instantly or seconds or minutes or hours or days?

If innate, how, then, can we call it "punishment"? Why is it that the unveiled glory of God must be present in order for it to cause punishment?


God kept them supernaturally alive, contrary to the natural, innate effect of sinning (as you put it), so that they were able to accumulate sins. Otherwise, A&E would have died after committing the first sin, and none of us would have been born. So, if one sin is enough to cause them to die, how does God keep them alive long enough to suffer punishment for all the other sins they committed? Wouldn't they die after suffering the effects of the first sin?

In this hypothetical, is God doing the same thing for Adam and Eve as He is for Satan? (i.e., Satan should, by all rights, have died right away, once he made his final decision not to repent, but God did not allow him to reap the consequences of his decision. Would God be acting similarly in regards to Adam and Eve?)



I'm a bit perplexed here. I've been making this point for years. If Christ had actually died the second death, He would still be dead, as that death is a death from which there is no resurrection. However, Christ "tasted" or experienced the second death, or, as EGW put it, He "suffered" it. If you agree with these points, then I'm glad as well (although surprised that you would have ever raised an objection in the first place, as I've never said anything different than this).



My understanding from her writings, and Scripture, is that we are dependent upon the grace of God to live all the time. How long it would take us to die without God's grace is not something I'm aware is commented on.



If you run a red light, and get hit by a car, you're being hit is punishment for your deed. If someone were hurt by your deeds, your guilty conscience would be further punishment, although these punishments were not imposed.



The glory of God is His character, and it is God's character, His goodness, that opens our eyes to see truth. It is this which leads us to repent (Rom. 2:3, 4). However, if one refuses to repent, eventually it leads to weeping and gnashing of teeth instead.

Without the light of truth, the conscience is not awakened.



The judgment brings to light all of our actions, not just some specific action. As the light is applied to the conscience, one becomes aware of all ones actions.

No.


The following quotes imply A&E would have died immediately had Jesus not implemented the POS.


TE: If you run a red light, and get hit by a car, you're being hit is punishment for your deed. If someone were hurt by your deeds, your guilty conscience would be further punishment, although these punishments were not imposed.

MM: Is this the normal use of the word "punishment"? Is cause and effect consequences "punishment" in the normal sense of the word?

---

TE: The glory of God is His character, and it is God's character, His goodness, that opens our eyes to see truth. It is this which leads us to repent (Rom. 2:3, 4). However, if one refuses to repent, eventually it leads to weeping and gnashing of teeth instead. Without the light of truth, the conscience is not awakened.

MM: During the Great White throne judgment, after the second resurrection, are you saying the wicked can look at God's physical appearance and discern His character to the point it causes them to suffer in proportion to their sinfulness?

---

TE: The judgment brings to light all of our actions, not just some specific action. As the light is applied to the conscience, one becomes aware of all ones actions.

MM: Being aware of every sin they've ever committed isn't the problem; they already know it, they've known it all along. The problem is when they are punished for their sins. One sin, in the presence of God, is enough to kill them. How do they survive long enough to be punished according to their sinfulness? Wouldn't they expire prematurely?

Regarding the quotes about Jesus' being their Savior, that's just what I was saying. We are dependent upon the grace of God every moment of our lives. However, the quotes do not cover how long it would take to die. I'm not aware of any quotes that do. I don't see why this would be important.

Regarding the normal use of the word "punishment," I think, in terms of Scripture, yes, that's normal. The punishment for sin is inherent in the sin itself.

The following quote sort of illustrates the idea:



Here's another one:



The law is given as a hedge to protect us from the consequences of breaking it. The evil consequences that come when the law is broken are punishments.



From "The Great Controversy:"



This is what I'm saying. By the way, we have an example of this in the cleansing of the temple, where "divinity flashed through humanity."



This seems pretty clearly not to be the case. Why would the statement say they become are conscious of every sin when the eye of Jesus looks upon them, if they already were before?



That is the punishment.



It doesn't say they're shown their sins one by one. It says they become conscious of every sin they've committed.

TE: However, the quotes do not cover how long it would take to die. I'm not aware of any quotes that do. I don't see why this would be important.

MM: Awhile ago you objected to the idea that A&E would have died immediately the instant they sinned if Jesus had not implemented the POS. You suggested they would have suffered at least a short time before succumbing to death. I was just curious if you knew of a passage to support your theory.

---

TE: Regarding the normal use of the word "punishment," I think, in terms of Scripture, yes, that's normal. The punishment for sin is inherent in the sin itself.

MM: Seems to me there are other factors involved. The fact Jesus supernaturally prevents sinners from suffering and dying the second, eternal death the instant they sin - a new situation is created, a situation where sinners can live in spite of sinning. Thus, whatever the true relationship between sinning and suffering and death is, the POS prevents it from happening.

Because of the POS, the results of sinning are different than what they would have been. Now we sin and suffer and die a first death, things that would have been impossible had Jesus not implemented the POS.

Even after the second resurrection, however, the results of sinning will be kept in check until after the Great White Throne judgment is completed. Eventually, though, God will cease doing whatever it is He does that prevents sinners from suffering the normal results of sinning, and then they will suffer and die according to their sinfulness.

If punishment is inherent in the sin itself, as you have suggested, then they should succumb to it (whatever it is) the moment Jesus ceases keeping them supernaturally alive and preventing them from succumbing to it. But that is not what I hear you saying. I hear you saying more is required, that sin of itself is not enough, that a knowledge of the truth is needful in order for them to suffer and die.

---

TE: Why would the statement say they become are conscious of every sin when the eye of Jesus looks upon them, if they already were before?

MM: Apparently, something has changed, right? People know what they have done. They can recall doing this or that. But for now the POS shields us from suffering the full consequences of sinning. But not so during the Great White Throne judgment. Could that account for the difference?

TE: However, the quotes do not cover how long it would take to die. I'm not aware of any quotes that do. I don't see why this would be important.

MM: Awhile ago you objected to the idea that A&E would have died immediately the instant they sinned if Jesus had not implemented the POS. You suggested they would have suffered at least a short time before succumbing to death. I was just curious if you knew of a passage to support your theory.



I agree.



Just for a time.



Agreed.



I would say that the Great White Throne judgment is a part of the results of sinning. EGW talks about Jesus looking at the wicked and their becoming aware of every sin. This not happening is part of what God prevents from happening.



I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I think I agree with your first sentence (it's not completely clear to me, but based on what I think you're saying, I'd say I agree with it). When you speak of the sin of itself not being enough, if one considers the suffering which the wicked suffer to be due to their seeing their sin in its true light, which is an integral part of their suffering, then surely truth and light are a part of this process.

So, in and of itself sin is not enough to cause sinners to suffer and die, right?

Since God is everywhere, and His light and truth is everywhere, your question doesn't make sense to me.

The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death, the sting of death is sin, the soul that sins shall die. The Spirit of Prophecy says:





There's many others. There's hardly a truth more established in inspiration than that sin results in death.

But God's omnipresence doesn't mean sinners know and understand the truth, right? God's being everywhere and sinners knowing and understanding the truth are not one and the same thing. So, how does it apply to sinners suffering and dying in the lake of fire?

1. Is sin, in and of itself, enough to cause sinners to suffer and die? Or, is more needed?

2. Must sinners also be made to know and understand the truth before sin can them to suffer and die? If so, which truths?

3. And, how does God cause them to know and understand them?

4. Also, what is it about the combination of sin and truth that causes sinners to suffer and die?

Regarding 1, the wages of sin is death; the sting of death is sin; the soul that sinneth, it shall die. As EGW puts it, death is the inevitable result of sin. It seems to be very clear that death is the result of sin.

Regarding 2, sin causes suffering and death precisely because of the impact it has upon them as the truth becomes known to them in the judgment.

Regarding 3:



Regarding 4, sin causes death as follows:

"The glory of Him who is love will destroy them." From this am I to understand you believe it is the glory of God that destroys sinners in the lake of fire? Or, is sin sufficient, in and of itself, to kill sinners?

What would sin, in and of itself, be? You mean a universe where sin exists only, but not God or God's character or light or truth?

We live in universe where sin and sinners and the glory of God exists. But we don't see sinners suffering and dying the second death. Why not? If sin, as you say, causes sinners to suffer and die, why aren't we dead? What's missing? What will cause sinners to suffer and die in the lake of fire that isn't causing us to suffer and die right now? Which elements must be present in order for sinners to suffer and die the second death?

God veils His glory, and prevents the natural result of sin to occur, which is death.

If God's glory = light, truth, character - are you implying God is currently veiling the truth, and that that is why sinners haven't suffered and died yet?

I think it's clearer to say that God is veiling His glory. Since His glory is His character, there's probably some way to state the same idea in terms of His character. "Veil" seems like a funny word to use with "character." I think "veiling the truth" is definitely not a good choice of words, as "truth" is to open-ended a word in terms of what it might mean.

I suppose one could say that God does not reveal His character in its fullness to the wicked, until the judgment. That sounds OK.

The problem involved with God's revealing His character is that God is good, so a revelation of His character is a revelation of His goodness, which certainly sounds like a good thing, but God cannot reveal His goodness without at the same time our wickedness being revealed. So God reveals His goodness to us a little at a time, in healing doses, so that we are led to repentance, and not despair.

TE: God veils His glory, and prevents the natural result of sin to occur, which is death.... I suppose one could say that God does not reveal His character in its fullness to the wicked, until the judgment.

MM: Like a filter, to reduce the intensity of God's glory? Moses saw the backside of God's glory and lived. However, even such a diluted exposure was enough to cause Moses' skin to shine so brightly that he had to wear a veil to prevent harming others around him. Seems to me, then, that God's glory causes a physical effect which can be painful.

That seems possible. Of course, God has no desire to cause anyone to suffer, but suffering and death are the inevitable results of sin.

I heard this explained thusly, that to say that Moses would see God's back was another way of saying that Moses would see the ground where God had just stood. Of course this would bring home your point even more.

Tom, it seems more reasonable to say that the inevitable result of sinners being in the unveiled presence of God's glory is suffering and death.

Thomas, I hadn't heard that before. Interesting. Thanx. I more inclined, though, to accept the facts of the story as it reads in the Bible.

When Moses asked to see God's glory, God proclaimed His character.



I understand Moses' only being able to see God's backside as meaning that God could only reveal a portion of His goodness; a full blown blast would be too much.

Pretty awesome when you think about it.

Mike, its a matter of accepting that the bible was not written in english, neither 16th century english nor 21th century english. Word pictures should not be expected to have exact correspondance.

What I stated, that suffering and death is the inevitable result of sin, is what EGW said. I think what she said is much more reasonable than your suggestion here, and I'll explain why.

What you suggest makes God, as opposed to sin, responsible for the death of those who disobey Him.

The argument of the enemy is that God will kill you if you don't do what He says. He presents God as an arbitrary ruler, with arbitrary laws, that He arbitrarily enforces by torturing and killing those who do not follow His arbitrary rules.

But the law is not arbitrary. It is a hedge which protects us from the results of disobedience, the consequence of which is death.

The principles of the law are love and unselfishness. Love and unselfishness are the principles of life. Selfishness and unbelief are the root of sin, the fruit of which is death. Not because God will kill you, but because you have chosen to accept principles, which have been melded with your soul, that can only result in death.

In the first chapter of "The Desire of Ages," EGW goes into this concept in detail. She talks about a circuit of beneficence, which she calls the principle of life for the universe, which is based on one receiving from God, and giving from that which one has received. The opposite of this principle of life, this circuit of beneficence, is to receive from God, and horde, not give from that which one has received, which is to say to live for self. The opposite of life is death. Life comes from unselfishness, from love, from giving. Death follows from selfishness, from not giving.

God seeks to teach us the principles of life.

This is a very good point. Even if the Bible were written in English, it still wouldn't be the case that one should expect in exact correspondence between what the prophet sees by revelation, and what one reads. But given that the Bible was written in a language and culture far removed from ours, it is even more the case that one should not expect the correspondence you have pointed out.

Tom and Thomas, if we cannot accept the Bible testimony at face-value, what makes you think we can accurately determine what it meant metaphorically? What it means to you metaphorically may not be what it meant to Moses, or whoever, way back then, right?

TE: The argument of the enemy is that God will kill you if you don't do what He says.

MM: Please support this insight with Scripture or the SOP. Thank you.

---

TE: God veils His glory, and prevents the natural result of sin to occur, which is death.

MM: So, sinners do not die the second death if God veils His glory? If this true, how, then, can you say sin is what causes sinners to die the second death?

Here's one which presents a similar thought:



On a related thought:





It's not me, is it? I've been quoting EGW, haven't I? Here's another one, a new one:



Another one:



One more:



But I'll return to the following, which I think is the clearest:



The wicked "place themselves so out of harmony with God" that simply being in the presence of God is to them a consuming fire. This should make it clear that it is not God doing something to them to cause them pain and death, but it is something they have done to themselves which causes them pain and death.

In my oppinion, what Moses tried to say and what the COI heard is more important for understanding the meaning of a text Moses did write than what it might mean at face value for you or me. You would understand this better Mike, if you knew more than one language and ever tried to accurately translate the meaning from English to the other language.

I'm not understanding what you're getting at here. Anytime we read Scripture, we have to interpret it. I'll give you a couple of examples where you are not accepting the Bible testimony at face-value to drive the point home.



Taking this at face value, the covenant at Sinai leads to bondage. Here's another:



Taking this at face value, the old covenant is not in force today.

You have different ideas regarding these verses, because you believe that the Old Covenant does not lead into bondage, and you don't believe that it "decayeth" or "waxeth old."

Now I wish to make clear that I don't disagree with your wanting to interpret these verses in a way that makes sense to you. You are trying to fit them within your paradigm, and make the fit with what you understand other inspired texts are saying. That's fine to do, and we all do that. But, while it's fine to do that, you should recognize that in so doing, you are not simply taking the Bible texts at face value.

You don't even take the Spirit of Prophecy texts at face value (you interpret them the same way you do Scripture, which interpretation I am not faulting), and she wrote in English, as an American, in a culture not so far removed from our own, as opposed to Moses, whose culture and language is far removed from our own.

If you want an example where you don't take EGW at face value, there's quite a few I could give, but I'll just give one. She writes that God offered to restore Lucifer to his position if he would confess his sin. You have a theory that Lucifer did not sin until after this point in time, so you wrote that "sin" cannot mean what we ordinarily understand it to mean. You stated the same thing about "repent" and "pardon." You're obviously not taking EGW's statements at face value, if you have to redefine common ordinary English words like "sin," "repent," and "pardon."

Again, my point is not against your attempts to interpret Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy (I'm not at all getting at the fact that I disagree with these particular interpretations), but with your apparent idea that you are take Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy at face value, whereas you think Thomas and I don't, because we bring out the importance of taking into account the culture, language of the time, and the context of the text.

Tom, thank you for sharing the quotes you posted above. Amen. However, how do I reconcile them with what you posted earlier - "God veils His glory, and prevents the natural result of sin to occur, which is death."

RE: taking the Bible stories at face value. Was anything lost when Exodus 33:18-23 was translated in English? In other words, does this passage originally mean something totally different than what it means in English?

Exodus
33:18 And he said, I beseech thee, show me thy glory.
33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

TV: You would understand this better Mike, if you knew more than one language and ever tried to accurately translate the meaning from English to the other language.

MM: So, true. In seminary we studied the translation of the Hebrew expression, "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness". In certain cultures the throat, instead of the heart, is considered the seat of emotions. The translators incorporated this metaphor. So, the above reads, For with the throat we believe unto righteousness.

I'm not seeing that there's anything to reconcile. It seems to me the same thing is being said that I've been saying all along. E.g.

"The glory of Him who is love will destroy them."

Which leads me right back to where I started - If the undiluted, unveiled glory of God must be present in order for sinners to suffer and die the second death, doesn't that imply that the undiluted, unveiled glory of God must be present in order for sinners to suffer and die and second death?

If so, then sin, in and of itself, is not enough to cause sinners to suffer and die the second death, which is an observation you seem to vehemently oppose. I am missing something?

True, there are no major changes in meaning from plain to contextualized in this particular case as far as I am aware.

Then you have the example of the culture where noone has ever seen a sheep, but all are pig-herders. Some translate that as Jesus being the pig slain from the foundation of the world. Not everybody is entierly comfortable with that.

I guess not. Which translation substitutes pig for lamb?

Yes, I think you're missing something. I think what you're missing is that the normal situation is that God the normal course of events is that God's glory is manifest, and not veiled. The DA 764 quote points out that the wicked so deform their own character that they can not stand to be in the presence of God. This should make it so clear as to be beyond misunderstanding that death results as a result of the decision of the wicked. She says this like 6 time in the span of one paragraph! I cannot understand why someone would want to blame God for what the wicked do to themselves.



Yes, 6 times in the space of one paragraph she points out that the death of the wicked is due to their own decisions, and she specifically points out, in (1), that their death is not due to something God is doing to them.

Some polynesian translations unless I have been missinformed.

Thomas, before I believe it, I need to see it. Considering what the Bible says about pigs, I cannot imagine translators making the decision to substitute a pig for a lamb to symbolize Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross. I must admit, though, that I am surprised every time I read the "look and live" story (where a fiery, brazen serpent symbolizes Jesus).

Tom, I totally agree sinners will suffer and die the second death in the lake of fire because they rejected Jesus, because they refused to accept Him as their personal Savior. God doesn't just wake up, show up, and decide, Hey, I feel like killing sinners today, these will do.

There is a reason He punishes them according to their sinfulness and then destroys them in the lake of fire. And that reason is plain and simple - They refused and rejected Jesus.

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

They are worthy of many stripes, worthy of double punishment. Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The idea that sin, in and of itself, causes sinners to suffer and die the second death in the lake of fire is unbiblical. The testimony of God is clear - The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. For our God is a consuming fire.

Sinners suffer and die the second death in the lake of fire as a result of an interaction between their sins and the glory of God. It is a deadly combination. "But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them." (DA 107)

The first part of your post presents the idea that the death of the wicked is due to an arbitrary (i.e. imposed) act of power on the part of God. But the paragraph in DA 764 I quoted states 6 times in that one paragraph that this is not the case, that the death of the wicked is a result of their own decisions. They so deform their characters that they cannot even stand to be in the presence of God, the kindest, humblest, gentlest being in the universe. Such is the power of sin to destroy.

In the quote from DA 107, just a little below where you quoted from, she says that the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked. The glory of God is His character. This is bringing out the same point that she brought out in DA 764, which is that the wicked have so wrecked themselves by sin that they cannot even bear to be in His presence. That there death is due to something they have done is evident by the fact that the glory of God gives life to the righteous. The same thing that gives life to one group results in the death of another. The is due to sin, not to God's acting different towards one group than the other.

I agree that the suffering and death sinners experience is not an arbitrary act on God's part. Being sinful and being in the presence of God's unveiled glory causes suffering and death. The two are simply, naturally incompatible.

God doesn't do something extra in order for His unveiled glory to cause sinners to suffer and die. That's just what happens when unsaved sinners are within physical proximity of the unveiled glory of God.

But I hear you saying it has more to do with how understanding the truth, the character of God, how seeing their sins as God sees them - that it is these things that causes them to suffer emotionally, spiritually and to eventually die the second death.

I think it's more of a mental thing than a physical thing (which is not to deny that a physical aspect may also be involved). So it's not so much that sinners are in physical proximity to God as that they are in mental proximity. As God's character is revealed to them, they see themselves as they really are, and they can't stand that.

Ty Gibson talks about this in his book "See With New Eyes" if you have that. If you don't, I can see if I can find the passage I'm thinking of. There's actually a chapter about it, talking about how God looks in the mirror, something like that. At any rate, I think Ty's ideas make sense.

I'm more interested in your ideas than Ty's. So, are you saying God doesn't have to be physically present in order for His unveiled glory to mentally consume them with their sins?

They're no different, in regards to this question. He's just more eloquent than I am.



No, I'm saying that God's being physically present isn't the most important factor. By the way, how can God not be physically present somewhere?

If God is physically present everywhere, how does He veil His glory? How does He prevent it from consuming us with our sins now?

Also, how does He prevent the truth from consuming us with our sins now?

By not revealing His goodness in its fullness.



Same.



Same.

Goodness?

Yes, His goodness.



The revelation of His goodness is meant to lead us to repentance, but if we refuse to repent, we cannot bear His goodness. The revelation of God's goodness simultaneously reveals the truth about ourselves, which is a truth we cannot bear, apart from the grace of God. If we refuse the grace of God, then that truth will do us in.

TE: If we refuse the grace of God, then that truth will do us in.

MM: Is it the truth or sin that does them in?

This is similar to where we read that the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked. The light of the glory of God should do what? Give life. It does give life for whom? The righteous. It slays whom? The wicked. Why? Because of sin.

Let's say the air is poisonous, and someone breaths in this poison and dies. I am maintaining that the poison caused the persons death. You are arguing something akin to "No, it's not the poison that caused the person's death, but the combination of poison and breathing."

Well, breathing is a perfectly natural thing, that should not result in death. Breathing is designed to give life. Death only resulted because of poison.

Similarly, the light of the glory of God, God's goodness, is designed to give life. And it does give life for all, except those who choose to breathe in poison.

Your example implies that sinners would not suffer the ill effects of sin if they simply avoided the undiluted glory (goodness, truth) of God.

My example implies that a person who dies by breathing poison would not suffer the ill affects of poison if they simply avoided breathing.

Being around God is as natural as breathing. We were created to be in His presence. That being around someone as nice as God would cause someone to die should awaken one as to what an awful thing sin is.

So, then, we agree that God must be present in His undiluted glory, goodness, truth in order for resurrected sinners to suffer in proportion to their sinfulness before they die the second death in the lake of fire. Being a sinner and being in the presence of God is a deadly combination.

First of all, how can God not be present somewhere?

Secondly, no, we are not agreeing. As I stated:

Please note that this statement qualifies something you agree with, namely, that God is omnipresent in a veiled, diluted way so that His glory, truth, goodness doesn't cause sinners to suffer and die prematurely.


They are damned if they do and damned if they don't, right? Not breathing causes death, too. Not a healthy scenario no matter how you slice it.

Which problem is due to poison, not breathing. Similarly, man's problem is sin, not God.

Sinners are able to live forever if God were to continue veiling His glory, truth, goodness. In your analogy they cannot live for ever holding their breath.

EW 51
I was pointed to Adam and Eve in Eden. They partook of the forbidden tree and were driven from the garden, and then the flaming sword was placed around the tree of life, lest they should partake of its fruit and be immortal sinners. The tree of life was to perpetuate immortality. I heard an angel ask, "Who of the family of Adam have passed the flaming sword and have partaken of the tree of life?" I heard another angel answer, "Not one of Adam's family has passed that flaming sword and partaken of that tree; therefore there is not an immortal sinner. The soul that sinneth it shall die an everlasting death--a death that will last forever, from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased. {EW 51.2}

Sinners can't even live for a microsecond without God's giving them life.



So, if anything, my analogy is lacking because it *understates* the situation. One could hold one's breath, and keep from dying for a couple of minutes. But, apart from God's activity in giving us life, we couldn't even exist a microsecond. So you're statement that sinners could live forever is off by forever.

Clearly what you meant to say is that if God were to continue to give sinners life, and simultaneously veil His glory, truth and goodness, then sinners could live forever. But since sin is misery, for God to do this would be simply to consign sinners to an eternal hell.

Tom, you seem to have not noticed the quote I posted. Here it is again (plus others):

EW 51
I was pointed to Adam and Eve in Eden. They partook of the forbidden tree and were driven from the garden, and then the flaming sword was placed around the tree of life, lest they should partake of its fruit and be immortal sinners. The tree of life was to perpetuate immortality. I heard an angel ask, "Who of the family of Adam have passed the flaming sword and have partaken of the tree of life?" I heard another angel answer, "Not one of Adam's family has passed that flaming sword and partaken of that tree; therefore there is not an immortal sinner. The soul that sinneth it shall die an everlasting death--a death that will last forever, from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased. {EW 51.2}

GC 533
Had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized. But cherubim and a flaming sword kept "the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24), and not one of the family of Adam has been permitted to pass that barrier and partake of the life-giving fruit. Therefore there is not an immortal sinner. {GC 533.3}

PP 60
In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life. Deprived of this, his vitality would gradually diminish until life should become extinct. It was Satan's plan that Adam and Eve should by disobedience incur God's displeasure; and then, if they failed to obtain forgiveness, he hoped that they would eat of the tree of life, and thus perpetuate an existence of sin and misery. But after man's fall, holy angels were immediately commissioned to guard the tree of life. Around these angels flashed beams of light having the appearance of a glittering sword. None of the family of Adam were permitted to pass the barrier to partake of the life-giving fruit; hence there is not an immortal sinner. {PP 60.3}

She plainly says, and the angel confirms it, that the reason there is not an immortal sinner is due to the fact sinners do not have access to the tree of life. That God sustains their life, too, is not the issue. He implemented the plan of salvation, so of course He sustains their life; albeit, it's a life that gradually ends because the vital organs decay and fail. Also, another reason they are able to live is because God veils His glory, truth, goodness, which would otherwise cause them to suffer and die.

---

Your analogy doesn't work for me. It doesn't establish the point you wish to make. Try again.

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I wrote. We could not exist for a moment without God's giving us life. You agree with this, don't you?

Or ability to live is not something we have inherent in ourselves. Our hearts beat by the power of God. We live and move and have our being in Him.

If God were to sleep, even for a moment, we would die.

She plainly says, and the angel confirms it, that the reason there is not an immortal sinner is due to the fact sinners do not have access to the tree of life. That God sustains their life, too, is not the issue. He implemented the plan of salvation, so of course He sustains their life; albeit, it's a life that gradually ends because the vital organs decay and fail. Also, another reason they are able to live is because God veils His glory, truth, goodness, which would otherwise cause them to suffer and die.

---

Your analogy doesn't work for me. It doesn't establish the point you wish to make. Try again.

Sin causes death, MM. Both Scripture and EGW teach this, over and over again. Not "sin + God" causes death, but sin causes death.

I'm sure you've heard the adage, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

I've presented a tremendous amount of evidence that it is sin that causes death. I can't force you to believe this.

Tom, whether or not you're view is right or mine has nothing to do with the adage you posted. If you think this is an issue then it might explain some of our differences.

Also, if sin, all by itself, is what causes resurrected sinners to suffer according to their sinfulness and to die the second death, why, then, do you keep quoting passages which say otherwise? On more than one occasion you have testified that it is the glory (truth, goodness) of God that consumes and destroys sinners with their sins in the lake of fire.

As I've explained quite a number of times now, there is no reason why simply being in God's goodness should hurt anybody. This is unnatural. Just like there's no reason that breathing should kill anyone. But if you put poison in the air, then breathing can cause someone to die. But the reason for their death is the poison, not their breathing.

Similarly, the wicked so place themselves out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. In this one paragraph (DA 764), no less than 6 times, does the Spirit of Prophecy explain that the death of the wicked is due to what they themselves have done, and not due to something God is doing to them.

Notice the phrasing please: "the wicked so place themselves ..." There is absolutely no reason why being in God's presence should cause anyone to die.

Again, as I've pointed out many times, in DA 108, we are told that the same thing which causes the death of the wicked *gives life* to the righteous. So it is not God's acting differently to one group than to another which causes the death of the wicked, but what they have done to themselves. They have imbibed poison, and that poison kills them. Not breathing, but poison.

TE: But if you put poison in the air, then breathing can cause someone to die. But the reason for their death is the poison, not their breathing.

MM: Tom, this analogy fails to support your theory. How about this one: Sunshine warms and gladdens the soul, but if we stand too close it will consume us to death.

---

TE: So it is not God's acting differently to one group than to another which causes the death of the wicked, but what they have done to themselves.

MM: Even at birth, before we are consciously aware we are sinning, we are incapable of surviving the undiluted glory of God. Not even Jesus, while dwelling in sinful flesh, was able to survive the undiluted glory of God.

How so? It seems to fit quite well.



Better is the same sun that melts the ice bakes the clay works. What you wrote is still making the problem seem to be God, rather than sin.



Reference?

TE: What you wrote is still making the problem seem to be God, rather than sin.

MM: How so?

---

TE: Reference?

MM: 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 12:29; DA 107.4

Because it doesn't say anything about sin, and makes death appear to be something that happens because of God.



Which of these says that Jesus, while dwelling in sinful flesh, was unable to survive the undiluted glory of God? Where did you get this idea?

Jesus not only survived the glory of God, He manifested it!

TE: Which of these says that Jesus, while dwelling in sinful flesh, was unable to survive the undiluted glory of God? Where did you get this idea?

MM: Jesus became sin for us. Sin cannot dwell in the undiluted presence of God. Where do you find Jesus, while in sinful flesh, communing face to face with God?

I could have a theory, say that while in sinful flesh, one cannot set foot on Mars, because in sinful flesh one is incapable of surviving such an experience. You ask me for evidence, and I respond: "Where do you find Jesus, while in sinful flesh, setting foot on Mars?"

I asked you for some statement which says what your theory says, that Jesus Christ, while in sinful flesh, could not have survived being in the presence of God. You cited 3 references that had nothing to do with your claim. You still haven't produced any statement that says that Jesus could not have survived being in the presence of God.

I have a point of clarification regarding your argument I'd like to ask you about regarding that Jesus became sin for us. Do you understand that Jesus became sin for us at the cross? Or during his whole life?

Tom, the passages I cited clearly teach sin cannot abide the undiluted glory of God's presence. To sin, "wherever" found, God is a consuming fire. Jesus became sin for us when He became a human. In this state, He could not be in the undiluted presence of God without being consumed by His glory.

Sin is not alive, MM. It's not something which can survive or die. People can survive or die. People who choose to give themselves over to sin die because the principle of sin, which is to live for self, is incapable of supporting life.



What is the law of life? Unselfish giving. What is the opposite? Selfish taking. What is the opposite of life? Death.



When He became human, or on the cross? You've stated a number of times that Jesus would have been consumed by God's glory had He been in God's presence, but you haven't produces evidence for this, unless your evidence is the following argument:

a)Jesus was sin.
b)Sin is consumed by God's glory.
c)Therefore Jesus could not be in God's glory, since Jesus was sin.

That's not much of an argument, if that's what you're saying, but I'll wait for you to confirm that is indeed what you mean before responding.

Tom, the passages I cited clearly teach sin cannot abide the undiluted glory of God's presence.

To sin, "wherever" found, God is a consuming fire. This is one of your favorites quotes. "Wherever" includes Jesus.

Jesus became sin for us when He became a human. Does that answer your question?

In this state, He could not be in the undiluted presence of God without being consumed by His glory. This is logical, too.

Where do you find Jesus appearing in God's undiluted glory?

Your language is difficult for me to follow. If we understand the glory of God to be His character, which is the correct understanding, then Jesus always appeared in God's undiluted glory. Jesus not only appeared in it, He manifested it.



I was going to present a quote from the SOP, and present the Scripture that she presented, but since both are in her quote, I'll just use that.

She is correct in affirming that the glory of God is His character, and she demonstrates this fact exactly how I would have, from Ex. 33. So, given that the glory of God is His character, for Jesus to appear in God's undiluted glory simply means that Jesus appeared in God's undiluted character, which is a funny way of phrasing things, which is why I said your language is difficult to follow.

At any rate, there was no barrier between God and Jesus; God revealed His character, or glory, fully to Jesus, without reservation, and Jesus revealed that glory to us fully, or, to use your word, undiluted.

Regarding Jesus' becoming sin for us when He became a human, what do you think that means? What Jesus literally sin? Or could it mean that Jesus bore our sin, and took our sinful nature?

In the past you've spoken about how God hates sin, and is angry at it, and pours out His wrath against it, and you've spoken about how this is how God treated Jesus on the cross. If Jesus "became sin" for us when He became a human, then does it follow that God treated Jesus in the way that you described throughout His whole life?

Yes, Jesus became sin for us. Yes, He inherited the same fallen flesh nature we inherit. His becoming sin for us cannot mean He committed a sin, or that His charater was corrupted by sin. The flesh He inherited, however, was sinful. It warred against Him in the same way it wars against us. It is this sinfulness that cannot abide in the undiluted presence of God. To this sin "wherever" found, our God is a consuming fire. God protected Jesus from suffering fully until He paid our penalty on the cross.

So when you say that Jesus became sin for us at birth, what you really have in mind is that Jesus became sin for us at birth in one way, and Jesus became sin for us at the cross in another way. IOW, you see a double application to this phrase, that Jesus became sin for us.

To make clear what I'm saying, you believe:

1.Jesus became sin for us at birth because He took our flesh.
2.Jesus became sin for us at the cross, because here God treated Him like sin.

IOW, God did not treat Jesus like sin, except on the cross. So Jesus' becoming sin for us has two different meanings, depending on whether we are dealing with how He was from birth, or how He was on the cross.

No, Tom, it's more like how God treats sinners now and later.

What you're saying here, in this last post, makes no sense to me. (i.e., I have no idea what you're trying to say).

I understand your argument to be the following:
a.Jesus was made to be sin for us.
b.God's glory destroys sin.
c.Therefore Jesus could not have been in God's glory.

I asked what you believed Jesus becoming sin meant, as previously you spoke to how God is angry at sin, and hates sin, and treated Christ on the cross as if He were sin. I asked if Jesus became sin meant this, what you had expressed earlier, or something else. You said that it meant that at His birth He took sinful flesh. So your argument seems to be that Christ could not have stood to be in God's presence because He took sinful flesh, and your argument is based on 2 Cor. 15:21. But you have previously applied 2 Cor. 15:21 to the cross. So I'm asking if you see a double application to is, one of which applies to Jesus' birth, and the other to the cross. Or did you have some other verse in mind in saying that Jesus became sin for us at birth by taking our flesh?

MM, you seem not to responded to post #97202, at least not to the idea developed there that God's glory is His character. Given that God's glory is His character, how can we say that Jesus could not abide in God's glory? He not only abided in it, He manifest it!

Tom, having the character traits of God doesn't cause suffering and death. Being in the presence of God in sinful flesh is what causes suffering and death. Jesus never did suffer or die from being exposed to the "brightness" of God's unvelied glory.

The "brightness" of God glory and the "character" of God are two different aspects of God's glory.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

The glory of God is His character. To say that "brightness" and "character" are two aspects of His character doesn't make sense.

The brightness of God's glory is a reference to Rev. 18:1, which speaks of the earth being lightened with glory. This is a reference to a message.

The "brightness" of God's glory is bright - like sunshine is bright. Yes, metaphorically speaking His brightness is His character. But character doesn't literally shine like sun light. Moses was exposed to God's brightness and it caused his skin to shine brightly. The unsaved souls who receive the mark of the beast will be destroyed by the brightness of God's glory. There is nothing metaphorical about this brightness. It will also cause rubbish to burst into flames and burn up.

Back to the topic. Jesus paid the price of our redemption to law and justice - to the Godhead. He paid it with His blood. Law and justice demands not only pardon but death for sin. Jesus had to die because it was required to satisfy law and justice. That's how it is, how the Godhead set it up from the beginning.

I wrote quite a long reply to this, but can't find it anywhere. Well, I guess that's that.

The "brightness" of God's glory is bright - like sunshine is bright. Yes, metaphorically speaking His brightness is His character. But character doesn't literally shine like sun light. Moses was exposed to God's brightness and it caused his skin to shine brightly. The unsaved souls who receive the mark of the beast will be destroyed by the brightness of God's glory. There is nothing metaphorical about this brightness. It will also cause rubbish to burst into flames and burn up.

Back to the topic. Jesus paid the price of our redemption to law and justice - to the Godhead. He paid it with His blood. Law and justice demands not only pardon but death for sin. Jesus had to die because it was required to satisfy law and justice. That's how it is, how the Godhead set it up from the beginning.

You just repeated what you said, right? Well, to repeat myself, I posted, or thought I had posted, a quite lengthy reply, but, much to my chagrin, I don't see it.

It probably took me an hour to put together. The second time through will take less time, though, so we'll see.

Okay. I await your post.

Still waiting.

Oh, sorry. (imagine a blushing emoticon).

Thanks for your patience. I'll see what I can do.

This assumes that God had a 19th century Western perspective of justice from the beginning. What evidence is there that God had such a perspective?

If one looks at Scripture to see how it describes justice, one sees Scriptures such as the following:









Justice is administered by showing mercy and compassion. God longs to be gracious to us because He is a God of justice.



The Biblical idea of justice is the restoration of the community (or individual) to shalom. I was searching on google to see if I could find something which nicely expresses this thought, and came across the above.

I'd be curious to see where you see in Jesus' teachings the ideas you have expressed.

TE: This assumes that God had a 19th century Western perspective of justice from the beginning. What evidence is there that God had such a perspective?

MM: Isn't it the other way around? That is, Western societies got their ideas of justice and mercy from God.

TE: Justice is administered by showing mercy and compassion. God longs to be gracious to us because He is a God of justice.

MM: Justice and mercy are two sides of the same coin, right? In mercy God withholds justice. The idea that mercy is justice isn't supported in the Bible or the SOP.

AA 333
When we study the divine character in the light of the cross we see mercy, tenderness, and forgiveness blended with equity and justice. {AA 333.2}

COL 177
The long-suffering of God is wonderful. Long does justice wait while mercy pleads with the sinner. {COL 177.4}

DA 577
The angel of mercy was then folding her wings to step down from the golden throne to give place to justice and swift-coming judgment. {DA 577.3}

DA 762
Through Jesus, God's mercy was manifested to men; but mercy does not set aside justice. {DA 762.1}

EW 221
But He will destroy them utterly and cause them to be as if they had not been; then His justice will be satisfied. {EW 221.1}

GC 48
God permits the wicked to prosper and to reveal their enmity against Him, that when they shall have filled up the measure of their iniquity all may see His justice and mercy in their utter destruction. {GC 48.2}

GC 537
Many regard the threatenings of the Bible as designed merely to frighten men into obedience, and not to be literally fulfilled. Thus the sinner can live in selfish pleasure, disregarding the requirements of God, and yet expect to be finally received into His favor. Such a doctrine, presuming upon God's mercy, but ignoring His justice, pleases the carnal heart and emboldens the wicked in their iniquity. {GC 537.1}

TE: I'd be curious to see where you see in Jesus' teachings the ideas you have expressed.

MM: The following passages address your question:

GC 541
The principles of kindness, mercy, and love, taught and exemplified by our Saviour, are a transcript of the will and character of God. Christ declared that He taught nothing except that which He had received from His Father. The principles of the divine government are in perfect harmony with the Saviour's precept, "Love your enemies." God executes justice upon the wicked, for the good of the universe, and even for the good of those upon whom His judgments are visited. {GC 541.4}

GC 627
The severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor may be judged by the Lord's reluctance to execute justice. The nation with which He bears long, and which He will not smite until it has filled up the measure of its iniquity in God's account, will finally drink the cup of wrath unmixed with mercy. {GC 627.2}

There's several problems with this idea. To name one, there have been many societies throughout history, including that of Israel, so why would no society in history have seen this until 19th century Western society?



Not mercy is justice, but justice is administered by mercy and compassion. I presented the Scripture for this.



I stripped out the quotes that weren't from Jesus, and this is what remained:



This is indeed in full harmony with God's concept of justice.

Where in Jesus' teachings to we come across the idea that Jesus had to die in order for God the Father to be able to legally forgive us?

My post was addressing the issue from Scripture, and, in particular, the teachings of Jesus. However, we can also pursue this topic from the standpoint of the Spirit of Prophecy.

According to the Spirit of Prophecy, God offered Lucifer pardon over and over, and gave him the opportunity to confess his sin, and be restored to his position, before being banished from heaven. If God cannot legally pardon sin without the death of Christ, then how could God offer Lucifer pardon?

A contemporary of EGW wrote:



This reminds me of the following statement by EGW:



Also this:



Since Satan already knew these things, Jesus' death would not have served to reveal these things to him, so God simply offered him pardon.

Yet another approach that can be taken in consideration of the penal idea is an historical one. I have already mentioned in previous posts that during Paul's time the concept of sacrifice as a means of a payment to God to enable Him to forgive sin simply did not exist, neither in his own culture nor any other culture of the world. The view of sacrifice in Paul's time was expressed by the following:



The sacrifice represented the giving of oneself in service to the deity. In Christianity (or Judaism) there was inherent the deeper understanding that, in truth, it was God who gives Himself in sacrifice, in service, to us.

Another historical difficulty comes to the forefront as we consider the author of the satisfaction theory, Anselm. I took the following from an Orthodox website:



The whole article is interesting. This excerpt deals with the part dealing specifically with Anselm. I'll repeat a portion:



There are two points here. One is that Anselm's are not to be found in either Scripture nor the Father's writings. We are pursuing the question of whether Anselm's teachings are found in Scripture separately, so here I'd like to consider the second issue, that his ideas are not to be found in writings of the fathers.

Now this is a very interesting point, because the fathers discussed so many aspects of salvation, including Christ's human nature, Christ's divine nature, to name a couple. The same issues we debate today (e.g. what does Prov. 8 mean which it says that Wisdom was "brought forth") were debated at length then.

The father's did not include Anselm's view of the atonement in their discussions of the atonement because none of them saw it in the Scriptures. The idea was not formulated until the last half of the 11th century. The reason the Orthodox church does not believe Anselm's view today is because it broke off from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm's teaching became a part of Catholicism.

Now for the satisfaction theory to be true, as Anselm taught it, we would have to believe that, during the time of the "midnight of the world," the "noon of the papacy," when the world was most enshrouded in darkness this crucially important truth was unseen by any Christians for a millennium!

I read one view which pictured the cross and the subsequent resurrection as the final proof of Jesus being the anointed one of prophecy, the hope of Israel. (Possibly one of many nuances covered in the book but at least one not to be disregarded.)

Tom, you seem to be saying law and justice did not require Jesus to die in order to pardon and save sinners. You also seem to be saying Jesus died to demonstrate God's love, and it is this demonstration of God's love that motivates sinners to seek pardon and salvation in and through Jesus.

If this is what you're saying, why, then, did Jesus say, before He died on the cross, that He had fully revealed the Father? He fully revealed the love of God before He suffered and died on the cross.

John
14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Show us the Father?
14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
14:11 Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

John
15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

MM, I wrote three long posts I presented arguments from Scripture, from the Spirit of Prophecy, and from history, none of which you are addressing here, as far as I can tell.

To respond to your comments and questions, neither the law nor justice are sentient beings who can require or not require anything. To say that justice or the law requires something is to say that some being, or beings, require these things. Is this being God? Are you saying that God required Jesus to die in order to pardon and save sinners? If so, I would say that Scripture teaches that God so loved the world that He *gave* His only begotten son.

It would be more accurate to say that God was required to give His Son, as the only means by which sinners could be saved and pardoned. To say that God required Jesus' death makes it sound as if God and Jesus were somehow against each other. But they were working together for the salvation of man.

Now it's possible to interpret the phrase "the law required Jesus' death" or "justice required Jesus' death" in another way. As we see in Scripture, "justice" has to do with the restoration of the community (or individual) to shalom. So understood in this sense, I would agree with phrase, in which the meaning would be that the only way that the sinner could be restored was by way of Jesus' death.

Regarding the reason for Jesus' death, what you mentioned in regards to motivation is certainly one reason for which Jesus died. The article I referenced mentioned several reasons for which Christ died, and I agree with those reasons. As the article pointed out, there were several models of the Atonement that were known and presented in the early church; just not Anselm's.



I'm sorry, but I can answer your question because I don't know what you're trying to get at here. What is it that you are disagreeing with? That Jesus death motivates sinners? That Jesus revealed the Father?

God = Godhead

All three of them consented to the plan of salvation before they consented to creating FMAs. They established laws which regulate how they would govern FMAs - obey and live; sin and die. If FMAs rebelled, a plan was in place to deal with the problem. That plan involved Jesus paying the price for rebellion so that sinners could be redeemed.

The death of Jesus also vindicates law and justice. This is as important as redeeming sinners. Law and justice serve, as it were, as a third party. The Godhead is obligated to govern the universe in accordance with law and justice, which they themselves established. All agree that law and justice are fair and right and equitable. Thus, no one can accuse the Godhead of being arbitrary. They cannot disregard law and justice without creating chaos and incurring guilt.

AG 73
So long as sin exists, suffering and death are inevitable. It is only because the Redeemer has borne the curse of sin in our behalf, that man can hope to escape, in his own person, its dire results. {AG 73.3}

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}

2MCP 565
God cannot dispense with His law, He cannot do away with its smallest item, in order to pardon sin. The justice, the moral excellence, of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe. And that holy law could not be maintained at any smaller price than the death of the Son of God.--RH, Nov. 15, 1898. {2MCP 565.2}

The idea that the death of Jesus was necessary in order to prove God is loving and worthy of our worship falls apart in light of the fact Jesus had already demonstrated, before He suffered and died on the cross, that God is loving and worthy of our worship.

If the primary purpose of His death was to prove God is loving and worthy of our worship, why, then, did He have to die - since He had already accomplished these things before He died? Is it a case of over-kill?

Since Jesus had already demonstrated that God is loving and worthy of our worship, it stands to reason He went on to suffer and die on the cross for different reasons. I believe Jesus' substitutionary death on the cross satisfied the demands of law and justice, that it gives the Godhead the legal right to pardon and save penitent sinners.

The following paragraph is in the context of a discussion of what Jesus' death accomplished:





Over-kill? As if we could know the love of God too well? No, I don't think so.

In relation to Christ's death, there are other beings to consider as well. The doubts that had been raised in regards to God's character had an impact on unfallen worlds and the holy angels. It was not until the death of Christ that the questions these beings had were fully answered. The cross of Christ was necessary to safe-guard the universe. Without the death of Christ, the universe would have been in the same state it was when Satan first made his accusations.

The above paragraph is simply stating thoughts from the SOP which I trust you are familiar with. I can provide the references for them, if you wish, although I've done so many times in the past, so I'm assuming you remember them.



You could make an argument that other reasons were involved, and this is true. I mentioned a couple of them in the comments just above this one. However, the fact that Jesus revealed God's love previous to His death does not imply that Jesus did not do so by His death as well. Indeed, I don't think you would argue that Jesus' death reveals God's love more fully than any other act He did.



I agree with this.



This can't be right. If Christ's death were necessary to give the Godhead the legal right to pardon, then it would have been necessary for Lucifer as well. But God offered him pardon without Christ's death. Was that illegal?

How does this idea even make sense? If you owe me a debt, I can forgive your debt, because you owe it do me. There is no legal requirement that I do something first, before I can forgive your debt.

Also, I've been asking you for some time now to produce some evidence from Jesus' teaching which supports the idea that Jesus had to die in order for God to be able to legally forgive us, but, to date, you haven't produced anything, have you?

Were these laws established arbitrarily? Or were they simply a consequence of creating FMA's? That is, is it possible to sin and not die? Is it possible to obey and not live?



This is true.



This is also true.



Justice and law are simply concepts which flow naturally from the attributes of God's character. They cannot meaningfully be separated from God, or treated as a third party to whom God must report, or pay homage, or satisfy.



You make it sound as if God is subservient to something He created.



Not all agree. That's why there's a Great Controversy going on.

The law and justice are fair and right and equitable if and only if God is fair and right and equitable. This is the problem with your suggestion that God can prove His course to have been correct by submitting to a third party, the law and justice. (I say "your suggestion," because this is how I perceive you to be arguing. These are my words, not yours, so if you feel I'm misrepresenting your argument, please correct my conclusions here). The law and justice can be no more right or fair or equitable than God.



This doesn't follow. If God created a law, and said that everybody had to obey it under pain of death, what could be more arbitrary than that? What makes things not arbitrary is if sin results in death as a necessary consequence of the nature of sin itself.



I agree with this, but why not? If it is simply because God says so, then that's arbitrary. If, on the other hand, God says so because this is reality, then it's not.

Tom, do you agree Jesus fully revealed the love and character of the Father before He suffered and died on the cross?

TE: If you owe me a debt, I can forgive your debt, because you owe it do me. There is no legal requirement that I do something first, before I can forgive your debt.

MM: Unless the law forbids it.

TE: Also, I've been asking you for some time now to produce some evidence from Jesus' teaching which supports the idea that Jesus had to die in order for God to be able to legally forgive us, but, to date, you haven't produced anything, have you?

MM: Obviously you are rejecting the SOP quotes I have posted numerous times. Why? The entire sacrificial system makes it clear pardon and salvation are conditional upon a substitute suffering and dying in the place of penitent sinners. It was not optional. It is not merely symbolic. Law and justice demand of God the substitutional death of Jesus in order to have the legal right to pardon and save penitent sinners. No death, no pardon. No pardon, no salvation.

Hebrews
9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Hebrews
10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
10:18 Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin.

Correction. All agreed the laws of God were fair and right and equitable until Lucifer began to find fault with them. But, are his objections fair and right and equitable? Or, are they bogus? Do you know of any in heaven who feels the law of God is arbitrary? Did they suspect it was arbitrary until Jesus suffered and died on the cross? If so, please post the quotes which support it.

The Godhead is obligated to govern the universe in accordance with the laws themselves established, laws which all agree are fair and right and equitable. The laws serve as a third party. All are beholden to live in harmony with them.

It is incumbent upon the Godhead to uphold and enforce them. They cannot disregard them. This is not, of course, a problem for the Godhead. They uphold and enforce the laws because it is fair and right and equitable. We can trust them to do what is fair and right and equitable. We do not have to wonder if the Godhead will go postal on us some day.

Death is not the inevitable result of sinning. God must pull the plug before sinners can die. Law and justice demands death for sinning. The Godhead is required by law to punish and destroy sinners. Law and justice allows for God to die in place of sinners so that sinners can be pardoned and saved.

I think everything Jesus did fully revealed the love and character of the Father. That being said, nothing demonstrated God's love and character as clearly as Gesthemane and Calvary.

The SOP says it we be good for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating upon the life of Christ, especially the latter scenes. Christ's whole life revealed the Father, especially the latter scenes.



There is no legal requirement that I do something first, before I can forgive your debt, unless the law forbids it? This doesn't seem to make any sense. Can you explain what you intended to say?

If I ask you for something from Christ's teaching, and you quote me something else, you're not being responsive to my request. I'm not rejecting the quotes you provided. They're simply not responsive to my request.

From Ellen White's writings it's clear that she did not believe Christ had to die in order for God to have the legal right to pardon because God offered Lucifer pardon many times without Christ's having died.



How is this clear? It seems to me that for thousands of years, until Anselm came along, no one understood it the way you are suggesting. So how could it be clear?



Again, I would ask, if the way you see things is correct, why did no one see it this way until Anselm?



Your claim is that God cannot legally pardon sin unless Christ died. These verses don't come anywhere even remotely close to suggesting this. In addition, I believe I asked you to produce something from Christ's teachings that support your view. This is Paul.

You can quote from Scripture if you wish, and we can discuss that, as there is nothing in all of Scripture that suggests God could not legally pardon sin without Christ's dying, but I'm particularly interested in your supporting your view from Christ's teaching because it is evident that Christ taught the reverse of what you are suggesting.

For example, in the parable of the prodigal son, the father went looking for the son while he was a long way off. When the son tried to repeat his speech, the father wouldn't hear of it. This story teaches the exact opposite of the idea that God requires some sort of payment before he will be willing to forgive.

In the parable of the man who owed the debt of 10,000 talents, an enormous son, more than 100 million in today's money, the king freely forgave the debt. Freely.

When the publican and pharisee were praying, the publican smote his chest, and asked God, "Be merciful to me, a sinner!" and went away justified.

Something often forgotten is that Jesus Christ Himself forgave sin. For example, He forgave the paralytic man's sins. Jesus Christ was (and is) as holy as God. If no man can come before God because of sin, because God is so holy, then no one could come before Jesus Christ either. Yet people did come before Christ, and Christ forgave them, without anyone's having died to give Him the legal right to do so.

When the woman caught in adultery came before Christ, Christ received her, and said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

There's nothing in Christ's life or teaching which in any way suggests that God cannot legally forgive sin unless Christ died. However, there are many things in His life and teachings which demonstrate that God freely forgives sin.

Correction to what? Before Lucifer's rebellion, the law was unknown. It came as a surprise to the angel's that there even was a law. They simply obeyed God because that was their nature.

They could hardly agree that something was right and fair and equitable that they did not know existed.



I've produced the quote many times.





The Great Controversy is over God's character. The law is a transcript of God's character, which brings it into question too. If God is trustworthy, so is His law. If God is not trustworthy, neither is the law.



The law is a transcript of God's character. Where do you get the idea that it's a third party?



The law is a transcript of God's character! God simply is Himself, and that upholds the law.





Death is the inevitable result of sin.



Death is the result of sin. The sacrificial offerings were intended to teach this.

If the first thing Jesus did revealed the love of God fully, what purpose did it serve Him to hang around thereafter? From what I hear you saying the sum of His mission was to win back our love and obedience by fully revealing the love of God. If I'm hearing you right, it stands to reason Jesus satisfied this goal in the first thing He did. Seems to me His death was unnecessary.


Your analogy doesn't fit. Jesus cannot pardon and save sinners simply because He wants to. Law and justice forbid it. He must first pay their sin debt of death before He can legally pardon and save penitent sinners. Even though Jesus paid the price on the cross to redeemed us, law and justice forbid Him to pardon and save impenitent sinners.

TE: If I ask you for something from Christ's teaching, and you quote me something else, you're not being responsive to my request. I'm not rejecting the quotes you provided. They're simply not responsive to my request. From Ellen White's writings it's clear that she did not believe Christ had to die in order for God to have the legal right to pardon because God offered Lucifer pardon many times without Christ's having died.

MM: You have never quoted Jesus where He says the opposite of what Sister White said. Your interpretation of her comments about Lucifer are not supported in the Bible. She never once said Jesus would have pardoned Lucifer after he sinned. She plainly said there was no hope for him after he sinned.

---

TE: In addition, I believe I asked you to produce something from Christ's teachings that support your view. This is Paul.

MM: Paul spoke for Jesus, did he not? Are you suggesting Paul didn't speak on behalf of Jesus, that his epistles do not count as the words of Jesus?

---

MM: The entire sacrificial system makes it clear pardon and salvation are conditional upon a substitute suffering and dying in the place of penitent sinners. It was not optional. It is not merely symbolic. Law and justice demand of God the substitutional death of Jesus in order to have the legal right to pardon and save penitent sinners. No death, no pardon. No pardon, no salvation.

TE: Again, I would ask, if the way you see things is correct, why did no one see it this way until Anselm?

MM: Are you suggesting sacrificing an animal was optional, that it was not required, that it did not symbolize what was necessary to obtain pardon and salvation?

---

TE: There's nothing in Christ's life or teaching which in any way suggests that God cannot legally forgive sin unless Christ died.

MM: Except for the fact He suffered and died on the cross.

---

TE: However, there are many things in His life and teachings which demonstrate that God freely forgives sin.

MM: All of the examples you cited teach that God has the legal right to freely pardon and save penitent sinners because Jesus paid the price on the cross to redeem us. He earned this right from the foundation of the world, way before Jesus shared the stories you cited. His stories were based on this truth and principle. It's called - merit!