Did Jesus have to earn the right to pardon and save sinners?

Did Jesus have to earn the right to pardon and save sinners? Some say, No, and others say, Yes. What do you think?

The following passages indicate that, yes, Jesus did have to earn the right to pardon and save us:

[Paul] lifted up Christ as One who hates sin and loves the sinner, the One who bore our sins that He might have full power and authority to impart to us His righteousness. {UL 342.4}

Mere forgiveness of sin is not the sole result of the death of Jesus. He made the infinite sacrifice not only that sin might be removed, but that human nature might be restored, rebeautified, reconstructed from its ruins, and made fit for the presence of God. (3SM 154)

Our salvation was wrought out by infinite suffering to the Son of God. His divine bosom received the anguish, the agony, the pain that the sinfulness of Adam brought upon the race. The heel of Christ was indeed bruised when His humanity suffered, and grief heavier than that which ever oppressed the beings He had created weighed down His soul as He was engaged in paying the vast debt which man owed to God. {HP 44.4}

On the cross of Calvary He paid the redemption price of the race. And thus He gained the right to take the captives from the grasp of the great deceiver, who, by a lie, framed against the government of God, caused the fall of man, and thus forfeited all claim to be called a loyal subject of God's glorious everlasting kingdom. {1SM 309.4}

Had they known that they were putting to torture One who had come to save the sinful race from eternal ruin, they would have been seized with remorse and horror. But their ignorance did not remove their guilt; for it was their privilege to know and accept Jesus as their Saviour. Some of them would yet see their sin, and repent, and be converted. Some by their impenitence would make it an impossibility for the prayer of Christ to be answered for them. Yet, just the same, God's purpose was reaching its fulfillment. Jesus was earning the right to become the advocate of men in the Father's presence. {DA 744.3}

The following passages also confirm it:

Christ bore all this suffering in order to obtain the right to confer eternal righteousness upon as many as would believe on Him. {TDG 216.4}

To the believer, Christ is the resurrection and the life. In our Saviour the life that was lost through sin is restored; for He has life in Himself to quicken whom He will. He is invested with the right to give immortality. The life that He laid down in humanity, He takes up again, and gives to humanity. {DA 786.4}

Death entered the world because of transgression. But Christ gave His life that man should have another trial. He did not die on the cross to abolish the law of God, but to secure for man a second probation. He did not die to make sin an immortal attribute; He died to secure the right to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. He suffered the full penalty of a broken law for the whole world. This He did, not that men might continue in transgression, but that they might return to their loyalty and keep God's commandments and His law as the apple of their eye. {TM 134.1}

Who says no? Is this right a moral right?

If we put our eyes only on our own selves, we may think the easy answer is "No." Jesus should not need to earn any rights. He is all-powerful God.

It is when we think more selflessly that we can soon see why God's law of love required that He earn our salvation. He is not only earning our salvation, but also the respect, love, and admiration of all the hosts of His creation throughout the universe, including the holy angels.

Had Jesus simply destroyed Satan in the beginning, all the other angels would have served Him thereafter from fear, and not of love. If Jesus were to take us to Heaven without a sacrifice to convert our hearts and help us see the true levels of degradation vs. holiness that were contrasted through His sinless life among us, we would either be sinning still, or would be serving Him from fear as well.

God is love. He does not want us to live in fear. Therefore, the sacrifice was required--for us, and for the hardness of our sinful hearts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Had Jesus simply destroyed Satan in the beginning, it would have served to validate Satan's idea that sin was innocuous. What inspiration tells us if God had *left* Satan to reap the full result of his sin, he would have perished.



This is a good thought. This isn't how I've thought of this, but it's good.



A hearty Amen!

Was it also required by law, that is, did law and justice require death in consequence of sin?

Yes, for the reason GC pointed out.

Tom, please summarize in your own words what GC said. And, do you think he rejects the penal substitution view, that is, the idea Jesus had to die to earn the legal right to pardon and save sinners and to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice (i.e. death must happen in consequence of sin)?

GC said:



I understand this to be saying that apart from Jesus' example, culminating in his death, we wouldn't see ourselves as we really are, the result of which would be that we couldn't be set free from sin and/or we would serve God from a wrong motivation.



Since most people accept some form of the penal substitution view, I would guess he accepts some for of it, yet he is evidently not limited to that view, given his comment.

Regarding your specific question, regarding saving sinners to satisfy the just loving demands of law and justice, it seems to me he may have seen his comment above as addressing that. It seems a bit odd that you would ask me what I think he thinks when he's right here.

There are always at least two ways of looking at the same thing. My earlier post looked at this from the perspective of love. However, we can look at it from the perspective of law just as easily, for God's character of love is also revealed through His law. The law of God is but a reflection of His character.

In other words, yes, God's law required the sacrifice in order to save us. Keep in mind here that wherever we see the word "law" we could accurately substitute the word "love" and vice versa.

Now, let me share the next part of my growing perspective on this.

The law required the death of a sinless being to substitute for the death required of sinners by the same law.

1) Sinners must die, according to the law of love, because sinners cannot be happy, and love demands that all are able to live in perfect happiness, harmony, and peace.

2) A sinless substitute must be found for multiple reasons: a) for a sinner to be able to substitute for himself is a ridiculous scenario, akin to pulling oneself up by his bootstraps; b) a sinner who dies was already under the death penalty, and therefore has nothing to lose, so it represents no sacrifice; c) other sinners would have zero appreciation for the death of a fellow sinner in their behalf, since, as noted in the previous point, that sinner was already condemned to die, and also, that sinner was just like them--so they could proudly think themselves perhaps more worthy of this dubious honor; and d) only a "wrongful death" would help us sinners to see the true depth to which we had arrived and the true love of our savior in spite of it.

Now, why could that substitute have not been one of the perfect angels? We are told that some of the angels volunteered for the role. Why not them?

We need, once again, to look no further than our own selfish hearts for the answer. What would you think if the One who had created you, the Master of the universe, sacrificed another of His creatures to atone for you?

Would we not think that this were unfair? Would not Satan have had justification in insinuating to us that God is a cruel dictator?

Therefore, there was only one substitute that could possibly have stood in the gap; and praise God He did!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Excellent!

Here's something I wrote earlier regarding this subject, a little over a year ago, which touches upon a similar theme you're bringing out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's an interesting quote from Ellen White:



It's the last sentence I find particularly interesting:



It seems to me this is what she had in mind as to why the death penalty was necessary.

Let's consider another well known proof text from EGW regarding penal substitution.



This states that justice demands that sin not merely be pardoned, but that a death penalty must be executed. But here it doesn't explain why. I think the reason why can be inferred from the first quote I cited. If sin were merely pardoned, but no death sentence was executed, it would not seem that sin had the consequence of death, which would embolden people in sin, which would, of course, lead to their death. So the only way God could prevent His creatures from dying involved convincing them of the awful consequences of sin.

The reason it says justice would not be satisfied is because justice would hardly be satisfied if man were emboldened in sin.

There are two notable exceptions: 1) Law cannot pardon; it can only condemn. Whereas, love can pardon. 2) Law cannot save; it can only condemn. Whereas, love can save.


Can you support this idea with inspired passages? From what I've read about it, the law demands death for sin. That's it. I haven't read where the law demands a divine substitute to pardon and save sinners.


Yes, love demands this, but not law. The law merely demands obedience and death for disobedience.


Again, can you support these ideas from the Bible or the SOP? From what I've read about it, how and why the death of Jesus is a just and valid substitute is consider an unexplainable mystery at this point. God hasn't explained it to us yet.

BTW, the law merely demands death for sin. Therefore, the immediate punishment and execution of the sinner would satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. The law does not demand restitution or reconciliation. It simply demands death in the day thou eatest thereof.


While it is true Jesus was the only one qualified to pay our sin debt of death it does not, however, explain why and how it satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice. This is still a mystery.

Tom, your explanation above of why the death of Jesus was required focuses on the affect it can have on sinners in influencing them to cease sinning and to love and obey God. However, it doesn't address the matter of past sins. So, what about past sins? What does the law require? What does justice demand? Is law and justice willing to ignore past sins if sinners to cease to sin and love and obey God? Or, does law and justice still demand that death must happen in consequence of past sins, and is this one of the reasons why Jesus had to die?

The standard by which to measure character is the royal law. The law is the sin detector. By the law is the knowledge of sin. But the sinner is constantly being drawn to Jesus by the wonderful manifestation of His love in that He humiliated Himself to die a shameful death upon the cross. What a study is this! Angels have striven, earnestly longed, to look into this wonderful mystery. It is a study that can tax the highest human intelligence, that man, fallen, deceived by Satan, taking Satan's side of the question, can be conformed to the image of the Son of the infinite God--that man shall be like Him, that, because of the righteousness of Christ given to man, God will love man, fallen but redeemed, even as He loved His Son. Read it right out of the living oracles. {LHU 150.2}

It was the marvel of all the universe that Christ should humble Himself to save fallen man. That He who had passed from star to star, from world to world, superintending all, by His providence supplying the needs of every order of being in His vast creation--that He should consent to leave His glory and take upon Himself human nature, was a mystery which the sinless intelligences of other worlds desired to understand. When Christ came to our world in the form of humanity, all were intensely interested in following Him as He traversed, step by step, the bloodstained path from the manger to Calvary. Heaven marked the insult and mockery that He received, and knew that it was at Satan's instigation. They marked the work of counteragencies going forward; Satan constantly pressing darkness, sorrow, and suffering upon the race, and Christ counteracting it. They watched the battle between light and darkness as it waxed stronger. And as Christ in His expiring agony upon the cross cried out, "It is finished" (John 19:30), a shout of triumph rang through every world and through heaven itself. The great contest that had been so long in progress in this world was now decided, and Christ was conqueror. His death had answered the question whether the Father and the Son had sufficient love for man to exercise self-denial and a spirit of sacrifice. Satan had revealed his true character as a liar and a murderer. It was seen that the very same spirit with which he had ruled the children of men who were under his power, he would have manifested if permitted to control the intelligences of heaven. With one voice the loyal universe united in extolling the divine administration. {PP 69.3}

If the law could be changed, man might have been saved without the sacrifice of Christ; but the fact that it was necessary for Christ to give His life for the fallen race, proves that the law of God will not release the sinner from its claims upon him. It is demonstrated that the wages of sin is death. When Christ died, the destruction of Satan was made certain. But if the law was abolished at the cross, as many claim, then the agony and death of God's dear Son were endured only to give to Satan just what he asked; then the prince of evil triumphed, his charges against the divine government were sustained. The very fact that Christ bore the penalty of man's transgression is a mighty argument to all created intelligences that the law is changeless; that God is righteous, merciful, and self-denying; and that infinite justice and mercy unite in the administration of His government. {PP 70.1}

Justification by faith is to many a mystery. A sinner is justified by God when he repents of his sins. He sees Jesus upon the cross of Calvary. Why all this suffering? The law of Jehovah has been broken. The law of God's government in heaven and earth has been transgressed, and the penalty of sin is pronounced to be death. But "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Oh, what love, what matchless love! Christ, the Son of God, dying for guilty man! {3SM 193.4}

The sinner views the spirituality of the law of God and its eternal obligations. He sees the love of God in providing a substitute and surety for guilty man, and that substitute is One equal with God. This display of grace in the gift of salvation to the world fills the sinner with amazement. This love of God to man breaks every barrier down. He comes to the cross, which has been placed midway between divinity and humanity, and repents of his sins of transgression, because Christ has been drawing him to Himself. He does not expect the law to cleanse him from sin, for there is no pardoning quality in the law to save the transgressors of the law. He looks to the atoning Sacrifice as his only hope, through repentance toward God--because the laws of His government have been broken--and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ as the One who can save and cleanse the sinner from every transgression. {3SM 194.1}

The mediatorial work of Christ commenced with the commencement of human guilt and suffering and misery, as soon as man became a transgressor. The law was not abolished to save man and bring him into union with God. But Christ assumed the office of his surety and deliverer in becoming sin for man, that man might become the righteousness of God in and through Him who was one with the Father. Sinners can be justified by God only when He pardons their sins, remits the punishment they deserve, and treats them as though they were really just and had not sinned, receiving them into divine favor and treating them as if they were righteous. They are justified alone through the imputed righteousness of Christ. The Father accepts the Son, and through the atoning sacrifice of His Son accepts the sinner. {3SM 194.2}

The scheme of redemption far exceeds the comprehension of the human mind. The great condescension on the part of God is a mystery that is beyond our fathoming. The greatness of the plan cannot be fully comprehended, nor could infinite Wisdom devise a plan that would surpass it. It could only be successful by the clothing of divinity with humanity, 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. This is the heavenly science of redemption, of saving men from eternal ruin, and can be carried out only through the incarnation of the Son of God in humanity, through His triumph over sin and death, and in seeking to fathom this plan all finite intelligences are baffled (Letter 43, 1895). {5BC 1133.4}

The work of redemption is called a mystery, and it is indeed the mystery by which everlasting righteousness is brought to all who believe. The race in consequence of sin was at enmity with God. Christ, at an infinite cost, by a painful process, mysterious to angels as well as to men, assumed humanity. Hiding His divinity, laying aside His glory, He was born a babe in Bethlehem. In human flesh He lived the law of God, that He might condemn sin in the flesh, and bear witness to heavenly intelligences that the law was ordained to life and to ensure the happiness, peace, and eternal good of all who obey. But the same infinite sacrifice that is life to those who believe is a testimony of condemnation to the disobedient, speaking death and not life (MS 29, 1899). {7BC 915.3}

PS - The quotes posted above demonstrate that the plan of salvation is mysterious and unexplainable.

May I point out that neither could love pardon?
God is love. Why could He not have merely pardoned us without all of the anguish and trouble of a sacrifice? "Without the shedding of blood" there is no remission for sin. Therefore, love may have driven God to this sacrificial act, but love alone has no power to save. It is equal to the law in this sense. I could just as easily make a case that the law demanded the blood of Christ as to say His love did.

However, let me further emphasize the point here: God loves all of His creatures. If love is able to save (as opposed to the law, which you claim is powerless), why will not all people be saved? If they are saved, is it not by fulfilling and keeping the law? Indeed, the law is just as much responsible for our salvation as is God's love, despite our traditional rhetoric to the contrary.



According to these verses, if we do not keep the commandments, it can be inferred that we also do not abide in God's love. Law equals love. Lawlessness receives God's hate.
I see that I worded this one poorly. I am not trying to say that the law demanded a substitute, I am trying to say that a sinless substitute was required by the law in order for sinners to escape the death penalty of the law.

Again, I see the law from the love perspective. God's law IS love. The law is given for our best good and happiness. "Thou shalt love..." is the fundamental law, as presented by Jesus.


If you want to let it remain a mystery for you, so be it. The mystery part in my mind is the sheer enormity of the love which God must have. We may never comprehend this fully.

See my foregoing comments, as I hope this is clarified better now.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Mike,

While I have no desire to refute this comment of yours, for it is certainly true, I would answer with a couple of questions.

1) Do you believe that we must understand at least part of this plan in order to be saved? and if so, how much?

2) Why discuss it in this thread if you already believe the answer to be shrouded in mystery which cannot be penetrated?

My take is, we certainly can understand a lot about it, and the more the better.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

We say the law is a transcript of God’s character but we must clarify that in the two ways named above they are not the same. True, love is an attribute of God’s character but it is not God itself.


Yes, the law is powerless to save sinners. Listen:

But he knows that the law cannot in any way remove the guilt or pardon the transgressor. He must go farther than this. The law is but the schoolmaster to bring him to Christ. {1SM 213.2} He who is trying to reach heaven by his own works in keeping the law, is attempting an impossibility. {1SM 364.1} Though the law cannot remit the penalty for sin, but charges the sinner with all his debt, Christ has promised abundant pardon to all who repent, and believe in His mercy. {1SM 371.1}


No, sinners are not saved by faith in Jesus plus by keeping the law. Our salvation is based entirely upon faith in the fact Jesus obeyed the law perfectly for us and then paid our sin debt of death on the cross. Listen:

Christ consented to die in the sinner's stead, that man, by a life of obedience, might escape the penalty of the law of God. {AG 160.3} Where love is perfected, the law is kept, and self finds no place. {RC 103.5} He does not save us by law, neither will He save us in disobedience to law. {FW 95.3} On the contrary, the very fact that it was necessary for Christ to die in order to atone for the transgression of that law, proves it to be immutable. {PP 365.3}

Let the subject be made distinct and plain that it is not possible to effect anything in our standing before God or in the gift of God to us through creature merit. Should faith and works purchase the gift of salvation for anyone, then the Creator is under obligation to the creature. Here is an opportunity for falsehood to be accepted as truth. If any man can merit salvation by anything he may do, then he is in the same position as the Catholic to do penance for his sins. Salvation, then, is partly of debt, that may be earned as wages. If man cannot, by any of his good works, merit salvation, then it must be wholly of grace, received by man as a sinner because he receives and believes in Jesus. It is wholly a free gift. Justification by faith is placed beyond controversy. And all this controversy is ended, as soon as the matter is settled that the merits of fallen man in his good works can never procure eternal life for him. {FW 19.3}


Again, please support this idea with inspired statements.


We should be able to agree on the following insights:

As you look into the Lord's great moral looking glass, His holy law, His standard of character, do not for a moment suppose that it can cleanse you. There are no saving properties in the law. It cannot pardon the transgressor. The penalty must be exacted. The Lord does not save sinners by abolishing His law, the foundation of His government in heaven and in earth. The punishment has been endured by the sinner's substitute. Not that God is cruel and merciless, and Christ so merciful that He died on Calvary's cross to abolish a law so arbitrary that it needed to be extinguished, crucified between two thieves. The throne of God must not bear one stain of crime, one taint of sin. In the councils of heaven, before the world was created, the Father and the Son covenanted together that if man proved disloyal to God, Christ, one with the Father, would take the place of the transgressor, and suffer the penalty of justice that must fall upon him (MS 145, 1897). {6BC 1070.4}

Mike,

Faith without works is dead, being alone. (James 2)

We are saved by works. We are saved by hope. We are saved by enduring. We are saved by baptism. We are saved by the name of Jesus. We are saved by fear. We are saved by blood. We are saved by grace. We are saved by faith. We are saved by love. We are saved by Christ.

There is no one thing that saves us. You cannot attach the word "alone", as in "we are saved by grace alone", to any of these things. This includes love.

The reason is simple: God has created us with the power to choose. He will not save us against our will. Yet all of these things are instrumental in our salvation, if we choose to accept it.



While we should seek to make salvation simple and easy to understand, we should not oversimplify it to any one thing, for to do so is inaccurate and misleading.

Jesus cannot save us, alone. We must choose His way and accept His salvation. We must endure. We must repent and be baptized. We must call upon Him. We must confess His name before our fellow men. We must work out our salvation by "fear and trembling." "Come, let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18). We work, and God works. His law is just as much a part of the picture as His love. Is it not salvation from SIN, which equals transgression of God's law, that we so much desire? Or are we just trying to take an easy shortcut to life from the penalty of death without regard to God's law?

The salvation I crave is to be free of sin. This is what Jesus offers us. If He were not powerful enough to free us now...if we are required to wait for some "magic" transformation at His coming...then God is not who I wish and understand Him to be.

In any case, this topic begins to migrate now toward a discussion of the 1888 message.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Your question presupposes there's a problem with past sins which doesn't have to do with our relationship with God. If the problem of past sins is that it damages our relationship with God, and God comes up with a way to fix that, and that remedy is accepted, then why shouldn't this be sufficient? Ellen White wrote:



If a person has been set right with God, why isn't that enough?

I'm assuming this is directed at me, with the idea of defending the idea of "ignorant obedience."

I agree with your PS. What's mysterious and unexplainable is the love of God which would lead Him to give so much. Also that this gift can have the effect of fixing things, for beings so entrenched in sin.

GC, do we add anything to the salvation Jesus wrought out for us when we consent and cooperate with God? I agree with you that our faith must work by love and purify us even as Jesus is pure but do we add to the work of Jesus as we experience genuine faith and works? Was His work incomplete and we must somehow add to it? Or, is Jesus' work the root of salvation and the good works we experience are the fruit of His work?

Are you implying here that law demands the death of a sinless, divine substitute in consequence of sin in order to pardon and save sinners?

If simply ceasing to sin and resuming loving and obeying God is all that law and justice require, why, then, is death required in consequence of sin? Why was Jesus' substitutionary death required? Your idea makes it sound like sinning is not a problem so long as sinners eventually stop sinning. Therefore, people could, theoretically, sin in heaven or in the new earth with impunity so long as they eventually stop sinning. The wages of sin is not death under this scenario. It wouldn't matter if a sinner raped and killed a child so long as they stop sinning. As such there is no penalty, no punishment - only reward.

Mike,

If Jesus is all-powerful God, and if His sacrifice was sufficient for all people who ever lived on earth, then why will the majority be lost?

Obviously, then, the sacrifice alone is insufficient to save us. We must help God, by working together with Him in surrendering our will to His and choosing to live for Him. Without this, we cannot be saved.

The gift is sufficient. It is free. But free gifts are not actually "gifts" until they have been received. One can say that we need do nothing, for Christ has paid the debt, and be correct, or incorrect, depending on the nuance of interpretation. If we interpret the statement to mean that we need not pay anything, it is correct. If we say, however, that we can just sit idle and expect salvation to drop in our laps without any effort or request or seeking on our part, we are flat wrong.

Can you tell me why, for example, the Bible says "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much"?

If God makes us righteous, then why would He be so unfair as to thus qualify only a select few? It is only understood correctly when we realize that each of us has a choice in the matter, and that not all choose the path of righteousness.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, it was directed at GC. And, another thing about the plan of salvation that is mysterious and unexplainable is how and why the death of Jesus serves as ransom for sinners, how and why it pays their sin debt of death since He was sinless. How and why does His death satisfy justice? How and why does it clear the guilty? It makes no sense to let a death row criminal go free simply because an innocent, sinless man died in his place. Such an exchange does not serve justice - even if the judge could guarantee society that the criminal will never sin again.


The death of Jesus serves more than merely influencing sinners to repent and obey God. It also serves to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice in requiring punishment and death in consequence of sin. Past, pardoned sins cannot be simply dismissed as irrelevant. Punishment and death must happen in consequence of sin. Just because a sinner ceases sinning it doesn't mean the sins he committed in the past are no longer deserving of punishment and death.

GC, I think you are misunderstanding my point. Yes, I agree sinners must consent and cooperate with God for the free gift to benefit them personally. But that's not what I'm addressing. Instead, what I'm asking is - Do we add anything to the work of Jesus when we consent and cooperate with God and experience repentance and righteousness by faith?

Tom, the following passage verifies the truth. Pardon does not cancel out the death sentence. The death of a substitute serves to satisfy justice.

Though there would be found none in Israel to execute the sentence of death upon the anointed of the Lord, David trembled, lest, guilty and unforgiven, he should be cut down by the swift judgment of God. But the message was sent him by the prophet, "The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die." Yet justice must be maintained. The sentence of death was transferred from David to the child of his sin. {PP 722.2}

I agree with you this idea you're sharing doesn't make sense. I also agree with you that this idea (at least in the form of a clear explanation of Christ's death) does not exist in Scripture.

So, in order for your idea to be true, it must be the case that:

1.God uses a means to save people which is illogical.
2.God uses a means to save people which isn't clearly explained in Scripture.

When you add to this your ideas regarding how God deals with the wicked in the judgment, you have (what appears to me) a very odd concept of what God is like (and not very attractive). Why not attactive? Because you would have God torture (my word, not yours) and kill people who do not follow an illogical plan He invented which He didn't have clearly explained in Scripture.

Yes, Mike, I think we do. We add our vote before the watching universe for the superiority of Christ's plan. We help to counter His shame upon the cross, for He has not died for us in vain. And we help Him to prove His words that, "I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men to me."

So, what we add can be summed up in one word: validity.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

These too:

Consider the Captain of our salvation. He suffered shame for us that we might not suffer everlasting shame and contempt. He suffered on the cross, that mercy might be granted to fallen man. God's justice is preserved, and guilty man is pardoned. Jesus dies that the sinner might live. Shame is borne by the Son of the Highest for the sake of poor sinners, that they might be ransomed and crowned with eternal glory. {TMK 287.3}

But David makes no excuse. Justice points to the broken tablets of the broken law and draws her sword against the transgressor. All apologies or excuses for sin are of no value with God. The sentiment of the soul of David was, Who shall testify to lessen the guilt of the sinner when God testifies against him? God's verdict--guilty--has gone forth, and man cannot erase it. {TSB 179.3}

Says the apostle: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." Only as we contemplate the great plan of redemption can we have a just appreciation of the character of God. The work of creation was a manifestation of His love; but the gift of God to save the guilty and ruined race, alone reveals the infinite depths of divine tenderness and compassion. "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 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." By that gift men are uplifted from the ruin and degradation of sin to become children of God. Says Paul: "Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." {5T 739.2}

The brief but terrible history of Ananias and Sapphira is traced by the pen of inspiration for the benefit of all who profess to be the followers of Christ. This important lesson has not rested with sufficient weight upon the minds of our people. It will be profitable for all to thoughtfully consider the nature of the grievous offense for which these guilty ones were made an example. This one marked evidence of God's retributive justice is fearful, and should lead all to fear and tremble to repeat sins which brought such a punishment. Selfishness was the great sin which had warped the characters of this guilty couple. {4T 462.2}

I saw the mercy and compassion of God in giving his Son to die for guilty man. Those who will not choose to accept salvation which has been so dearly purchased for them, must be punished. Beings whom God created have chosen to rebel against his government; but I saw that God did not shut them up in hell to endure endless misery. He could not take them to heaven; for to bring them into the company of the pure and holy would make them perfectly miserable. God will not take them to heaven, neither will he cause them to suffer eternally. He will destroy them utterly, and cause them to be as though they had not been, and then his justice will be satisfied. He formed man out of the dust of the earth, and the disobedient and unholy will be consumed by fire, and return to dust again. I saw that the benevolence and compassion of God in this, should lead all to admire his character, and to adore him; and after the wicked shall be destroyed from off the earth, all the heavenly host will say, Amen! {1SG 118.1}

The work of Jesus was validated by God Himself. How can we improve upon that?

Tom, please comment on each one of the passages I posted to support my view. Each quote clearly say, Yes, to the title question of this thread.

Death comes as a result of sin. The way to remove the death sentence, if one wishes to speak in these terms, is to remove sin.

Tom, did Jesus have to earn the right to pardon and save sinners? Please explain. Also, I posted many passages which clearly say, Yes, and you haven't responded to them yet. Please do so. Thank you.

I think GC's explanation of this is fine regarding this (i.e. Jesus' earning the right to save).

I don't know how you'd want me to respond to passages. Perhaps you could quote one or two of them and comment, and I could respond to that.

Never mind, thank you anyhow.

Ok, but, in the future, please don't post a whole bunch of texts and ask me to comment on them. Make some point about some text, and I'll comment on your point.

Yeah, I have trouble appreciating your unwillingness to address the abundant testimony that exists on a particular subject. For example, the passages I've posted on this thread clearly teach Jesus earned the legal right to pardon and save sinners.

None of the passages you speak of a "legal right" to pardon. Only you mention "legal."

I was curious to see if Ellen White ever used this phrase, and she did. In the context of marriage and divorce.

I think GC's explanation makes sense.

Tom, do you think you and GC see eye to eye on the penal substitution aspect of Jesus' death? That is, do you think he agrees with your version of it? Let me see if I can accurately summarize your version:

Jesus died to demonstrate the self-sacrificing love of God to motivate and influence sinners to love and obey God. He did not also have to die because law and justice require punishment and death in consequence of sin. Jesus' punishment and death does not counts as our punishment and death, at least not in this sense we are no longer required to suffer and die to pay for our sins.

I was just commenting on what he said about Christ's earning the right to pardon. If he holds a similar view in relation to God (i.e., that the logic involved in regards to Christ's earning the right for God to be able to pardon) it would seem to me inevitable that we would have similarities in our view.

I liked the points he made about love and law. I've said very similar things in the past. I think he's looking at things the right way, using that post he wrote discussing law/love as a basis for saying so.

Do you think these insights are inconsistent with the view I hold to, namely, that the death penalty for pardoned sins cannot be annulled merely because we cease sinning, that Jesus had to die on our behalf and in our place (in addition to the other reasons you advocate) because law and justice require death for sin, that death must happen in consequence of sin regardless if we cease sinning?

This can be interpreted in several ways, so I won't comment on this, but I will say I think it's consistent with what you've said about Jesus having to earn the right to legally pardon us, or for Him to do so in order for God to be able to legally pardon.

Ellen is pretty clear here that, yes, Jesus had to earn the right to pardon and save us.

Agreed?

Yes, and as I've said, I think GC gave a good explanation as to why.

Ellen gave the reasons why Jesus had to earn the right to pardon and save sinners in the following passages:

[Paul] lifted up Christ as One who hates sin and loves the sinner, the One who bore our sins that He might have full power and authority to impart to us His righteousness. {UL 342.4}

Mere forgiveness of sin is not the sole result of the death of Jesus. He made the infinite sacrifice not only that sin might be removed, but that human nature might be restored, rebeautified, reconstructed from its ruins, and made fit for the presence of God. (3SM 154)

Our salvation was wrought out by infinite suffering to the Son of God. His divine bosom received the anguish, the agony, the pain that the sinfulness of Adam brought upon the race. The heel of Christ was indeed bruised when His humanity suffered, and grief heavier than that which ever oppressed the beings He had created weighed down His soul as He was engaged in paying the vast debt which man owed to God. {HP 44.4}

On the cross of Calvary He paid the redemption price of the race. And thus He gained the right to take the captives from the grasp of the great deceiver, who, by a lie, framed against the government of God, caused the fall of man, and thus forfeited all claim to be called a loyal subject of God's glorious everlasting kingdom. {1SM 309.4}

Had they known that they were putting to torture One who had come to save the sinful race from eternal ruin, they would have been seized with remorse and horror. But their ignorance did not remove their guilt; for it was their privilege to know and accept Jesus as their Saviour. Some of them would yet see their sin, and repent, and be converted. Some by their impenitence would make it an impossibility for the prayer of Christ to be answered for them. Yet, just the same, God's purpose was reaching its fulfillment. Jesus was earning the right to become the advocate of men in the Father's presence. {DA 744.3}

Christ bore all this suffering in order to obtain the right to confer eternal righteousness upon as many as would believe on Him. {TDG 216.4}

To the believer, Christ is the resurrection and the life. In our Saviour the life that was lost through sin is restored; for He has life in Himself to quicken whom He will. He is invested with the right to give immortality. The life that He laid down in humanity, He takes up again, and gives to humanity. {DA 786.4}

Death entered the world because of transgression. But Christ gave His life that man should have another trial. He did not die on the cross to abolish the law of God, but to secure for man a second probation. He did not die to make sin an immortal attribute; He died to secure the right to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. He suffered the full penalty of a broken law for the whole world. This He did, not that men might continue in transgression, but that they might return to their loyalty and keep God's commandments and His law as the apple of their eye. {TM 134.1}

There's too many to look at all of these, so let's try the alpha and the omega. Here's the alpha:



What is the "full power and authority" speaking of here? This is the very first question I asked on this thread.

GC addressed this issue in his posts. He pointed out that the authority is a moral one, on the basis of love.

Here's the omega:



Note the underlined portion. How is the devil, who had the power of death, destroyed?



You see that the destruction of the devil is related to:

1.Christ's taking our human nature.
2.Christ's death.
3.Delivering those who were in fear of bondage.

This isn't a physical destruction, but a destruction of ideas. That is, the devil enslaves us by false idea. He is destroyed (his ability to hold us in bondage) by being exposed.

Ellen White eloquently speaks to this point in "It Is Finished" (the chapter in the Desire of Ages which explains the meaning of Christ's death.)



This is how Satan was destroyed.

Notice that the casting down of Satan occurred when he was exposed. This is very significant.

In order to understand the casting down of Satan, we need to understand how he wields his power.



He relied upon deception to gain power. When the deception is unmasked, his power is broken.

Tom, you seem to have switched gears, changed to a new topic. Do you agree with me that the 8 short passages above, taken as a whole, make it clear that Jesus earned the right to save and pardon sinners and to restore paradise?

Yes, Jesus earned the right.

It's the same subject, MM. I'm explaining how Jesus earned the right. It's similar to what GC wrote.

I think if you proceed along the lines of asking what the problem is that needs to be solved, that's a good way to start. If you look at the DA passages I cited, they point out the problem.

Tom, the reason Jesus had to suffer and die to earn the right to pardon and save sinners and to punish and destroy the wicked is because law and justice demand death for sin. This aspect of law and justice cannot be dismissed simply because sinners cease to sin.

I think GC did a good job explaining what this means.

GC agrees with me. Do you agree with him?

We'll have to get GC to weigh in on this. Regarding the atonement, it appears to me that he's saying the same thing I've been saying for years.

You mentioned Lucifer's case. We can bring that up to him as well. I have mentioned many times that God offered to pardon Lucifer without Christ's having to die in order for Him to do so. GC pointed out that Christ's sacrifice for Lucifer would have done no good because he already knew God's love and character, the same point I've made many times. My guess is he would agree with my point that God offered to pardon Lucifer of his sin many times, and that it was not necessary for Christ to die in order to do so.



GC looks to have referred to this passage, and another one I've often quoted:



GC has also brought out several times the importance of understanding the atonement not simply in terms of the relation to man, but to the universe as a whole, another point I've made many times.

So it appears to me that GC's understanding of the atonement is very similar to mine. Actually, up to now, I haven't perceived a difference.

Tom and Mike,

Coming from a third perspective, as I am, I am not sure exactly where the two of you differ. I've seen points bantered back and forth, largely in the forms of questions like "Do you agree with this?" However, I'm not sure of exactly which points you find in conflict.

From my present position, it appears that just as there are two sides of a coin, each of you may be seeing one side, whereas I see both. In other words, I'm not sure I differ with either of you. I do not see myself, presently, as siding more heavily with one or the other of you. If you clarify some point on which you differ, then perhaps I can see where I stand on that particular point.

It appears to me that Tom's special focus has been God's love. Mike has focused on God's law. But I see them as one and the same. As we say, there is a hard side of love. I see that. God has His own hard side. His mercy is not forever.

"He will not always strive with us, neither will he keep his anger forever." (David's words, Psalm 37?)

Mike also seems more focused on this earth and the human family. I view the Great Controversy within the perspective of the entire Universe. Thus, God's sacrifice is not just for us, but for all those watching us as well.

God is on trial. His law and justice stand accused of being unfair. Satan claims it is not possible to keep God's law fully. But God will have a people, just before He comes, who do just that. This will be the final proof to end the conflict with Satan.

Jesus has made the proof of His love on the cross. At the same time, He established the unchanging character of His law. But it is only when He demonstrates to the watching Universe that His power is sufficient to enable us to keep His law fully, and live perfect before Him, that the final blow to the devil's assertions will come. At that point, all will know without a doubt that God was right, and Satan was wrong.

Therefore, we have the privilege of being among those who help to vindicate God, His law, and His character. This is what makes the 144,000 so special to God.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I agree with seeing God's law as His love.

Perhaps this will help spell out our difference. From MM's perspective, if Christ had not died, God would not have been able to legally pardon man (due to a limitation on God's side). That is, God did not have the legal right to pardon man unless Christ died. I've argued against this on both the basis of Scripture and the SOP. Most of MM and my discussions have centered around SOP quotes, and this is what MM usually cites.

What I've argued, in relation to the SOP, is that the reason Christ had to die could not be what MM has asserted, because this same reason would apply to Satan. That is, if it were necessary for Christ to die in order to satisfy some legal requirement that would confer upon God the ability to pardon, then it would have been necessary for Christ to die in order to pardon Satan. Yet we are told that God offered pardon Satan again and again, without Christ's having to die, so this shoots that whole theory down. There must be some *other* reason that Christ's death was necessary, which are the reasons you've been pointing out.

For example,



The reason Christ didn't die for Satan is because it wouldn't have done any good. But for man, it could to good. Why? Because of some legal requirement? No, but because man's mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry, not knowing the height and depth of God's love; by beholding God's character man could be drawn back to God. This wasn't possible for Satan, so there was no sacrifice for him.

But if there were some independent legal requirement (by independent I mean without reference to issues like responding to God's love, knowing God's character, being drawn back to God, things like that) then it *would* have been necessary for Christ to have died for God to have pardoned Satan. Yet God offered Satan pardon anyway, without Christ's death. Why? Because Satan already knew God's love and character. All that was necessary for Satan was to make a decision as to what he wanted to do. Man was not in the same position as Satan, because his mind had been darkened to Satan's sophistry. God had to do something to even get man to the point to where it was possible for him to make the same decision God offered Satan.

This whole process is approved by the law and satisfies the justice of God. I agree with statements emphasizing that Christ's death was necessary to satisfy justice and legal requirements, but not independent of the issues which DA 761-762 bring up.

I wanted to make a comment on the following:



My focus has been more on God's character. Now "God is love," so the defining attribute of His character is His love, so there's definitely a close connection. However, the law is a transcript of His character, and love is the fulfilling of the law, so it's easy to see that an emphasis on God's character must, of necessity, also emphasize both His love and His law.

Hi, I havent read all of this but didnt Jesus also "earn the right" to pardon and save sinners, not only by His death but by His LIFE as well?

Someone might of already said this but just in case they havent...

Romans 8:
3: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

He had to live a life completely free from sin in order to be able to condemn sin in the flesh... so we'd have no excuse for sin.

Maybe later I will be able to join in convsersations when a topic first starts so I wont annoy anybody by not knowing whats going on LOL!

and I know this will probably seem strange but as I was looking at something Elle said in a SOP quotation it made me think of this:

"The coin, though lying among dust and rubbish, is a piece of silver still. Its owner seeks it because it is of value. So every soul, however degraded by sin, is in God's sight accounted precious. As the coin bears the image and superscription of the reigning power, so man at his creation bore the image and superscription of God; and though now marred and dim through the influence of sin, the traces of this inscription remain upon every soul. God desires to recover that soul and to retrace upon it His own image in righteousness and holiness." COL 194

Since we at creation bore the image of the "reigning power" of God, it has to be that same image of the reigning power restored in us and it has to be the reigning power Himself who does everything to redeem and restore us, doesnt it?

Ive been watching videos on the Sabbath and reading Hebrews chapter 4 and realizing that Jesus as our Creator has everything to do with our salvation, because He is our Creator. He had to die for us because He is our Creator and He had to live out the perfect life for us because He is our Creator and He has to re-create His image in us because He is our Creator. He is the only One who couldve done all this.

I dont even know how to put into the right words what Im trying to say here but I just have an idea that this has something to do with it all, maybe.

Also I was thinking that in order to be both "Just and the Justifier" Jesus our Creator had to do ALL THESE THINGS in OUR place for us... die for us, because we incurred God's wrath for our sins, so He must pay the penalty of the Second Death to satisfy God's Justice... and LIVE for us, in the place of us, the perfect life as if we did it... He does THAT in our place as well, in order to satisfy the Justice of God... so Jesus can be "Just and the Justifier" of us...

BUT then if we fail to MAKE IT SO by actually dying OURSELVES with Christ, like it says in the chapter 6 of Romans, being buried WITH Him, the entire thing becomes "Null and Void" because it says in Romans 6 that only they who die WITH CHRIST will LIVE with Him at the Resurrection.

So see how Jesus had to do ALL these things to "earn the right" for us?

He as our Creator, who bears the same superscription of that "reigning power" which we should bear, and man DID bear at creation, which is what he was created to be in the first place, Jesus had to do ALL THE THINGS we are to do, pay the penalty of the Second Death, LIVE the life free from sin...

I hope this makes sense.

This is exactly what I believe, too!!!

GC, I totally agree with everything Tom says about the moral influence Jesus' death has on sinners. Our discussions do not dispute this aspect of Jesus' death. The sacrificial love and character of God demonstrated on the cross influences and inspires sinners to love and obey God. No question about it.

Tom and I disagree regarding the legal requirements of law and justice as it pertains to why Jesus had to die. I believe law and justice demand death for sin. I also believe pardon does not annul this requirement. Jesus had to die because death must happen in consequence of sin.

God cannot disregard the just and loving demands of law and justice. He has bound Himself by His word and by His law to uphold law and justice. The security of the Universe depends on it. Just because sinners cease to sin and learn to love and obey God, it does not give Him the right to set aside the death penalty.

Tom, you cannot cite Lucifer's case as proof God has the right to pardon sinners without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. You do not have enough evidence to establish this idea. There is no evidence that God would have reinstated Lucifer after he sinned on condition of repentance and submission without also requiring the the substitutionary death of Jesus. If what you believe is true, namely, Jesus did not die because law and justice demand death for sin, you should be able to prove it without relying on inconclusive ideas regarding Lucifer's case.

This is all the evidence that's needed:





This establishes the point that God offered Lucifer pardon without Jesus Christ's having had to die to do so.



Sure there is. See the above quotes!



I don't disagree with this. I disagree with your assertion that God was not able to forgive sin without Jesus' death giving him the legal right to do so.



Ok. Let's discuss the case from Scripture. We'll start with the words of Jesus Himself. Show me where Jesus said that God was not legally permitted to forgive sins, and only the death of Jesus allowed Him to do so.

My take is that there is a distinction between forgiving sins and granting a pardon to a sinner on death row.

In other words, God has always been able to forgive. More than this, I do not believe He has ever held resentments or unforgiveness toward sinners, ever. His character is love, mercy, patience, and forgiveness. It has always been thus, and always will be thus.

It is my strong conviction that God will, and has, forgiven Lucifer of his sins.

However, forgiveness and pardon in the sense of removing the penalty for sin, are two different things.

To hold a grudge, or to be unforgiving toward someone, is sin. Why would we think that God does this? God does not sin.

However, God is just. There is a penalty for sin. Death is the penalty. Unless we accept the Kingly pardon, we remain on death row, even though He forgives us.

I know many Christians who have forgiven the murderer who killed their close family members. The murderer was still executed. In some cases, the murderer had confessed his wrongs, had a change of heart, become a Christian...but was still executed. This is an example of the difference between experiencing forgiveness and receiving a pardon.

I am probably not doing justice to this in my attempt to explain it. I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say, though my wording is imprecise.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In light of what I just posted, God also forgave Lucifer at the outset of sin in Heaven. However, whether or not there would still have been a substitutionary atonement required in order to fully restore Lucifer to his former position and to escape the death penalty is not, to my understanding, ever set forth in either the Bible or Ellen White's writings.

It is my understanding that the angels' situation and our situation differ in some critical points. Therefore, the plans of redemption may also have reason to differ in significant ways as well.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Stating the problem this way makes it look like our difficulties come from some aspect of God rather than sin. That is, because God is holy, say, He cannot stand sin. Because He cannot stand sin, He's got to do something about His problem, so Christ becomes a means to fix God's problem, and our problem as well, because we cannot stand God's wrath. So the problem boils down to God and God's wrath.

Now another way of looking at things is that the problem is sin. Sin warps our characters, so that *we* cannot stand God. So the problem becomes one focused on ourselves and sin rather than on God and His wrath. What needs to happen is that we are "fixed" so that we can stand to be in God's presence (and, much more, even desire to be in His presence, and do the things which make Him happy, because they make us happy too).



This gets into the question of what God's justice is. We, in our western civilization, thing of justice most often in terms of retribution. But in Scripture justice is most often restorative. The idea of justice is to set things right. Here's an EGW quote which brings out this idea:



This is actually explaining John 17. John expressed the idea throughout his Gospel that Jesus Christ came to reveal the Father. Note here that the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission on earth was "the revelation of God" to the end of "setting men right." This is justice! (Not Western, but Scriptural).

Here's some Scriptures which bring out the concept of justice:



Justice is administered by showing mercy and compassion. Thus the righteousness, or justice, of God is administered through the cross of Christ, which, above all, reveals the mercy and compassion of God.



It's too bad the cross has been so often misunderstood. Christ's death is a gift from God to us, a gift of supreme self-sacrifice, administering justice through mercy and compassion, so that we could be reconciled to Him. It's not a means by which God could extricate Himself from a legal difficulty, or God's venting His wrath against sin in the person of His Son so He wouldn't have to do so against us.



Fifield has clearly articulated the point. The problem is with us, not with God.



I agree with this, but may understand the mechanism differently. I see that death is the inevitable result of sin, and that we must be saved from sin in order to be saved from death. The only way to be saved from sin is to be united to Christ, and it took the life and death of Christ to make that possible for us.

This is where our discussions regarding Satan come into place. If Jesus had to die in order for it to possible for pardon to take place, because of some arbitrary requirement that if sin takes place then someone has to die, then this arbitrary requirement would have been just as necessary for Satan's pardon as for man's. Yet we see that God offered Satan pardon again and again, without there being a necessity of someone's having to die because sin took place.

This whole thing involves, IMO, looking at death in the wrong way, but seeing it not as the inevitable result of sin but as something arbitrarily imposed by God.

Death is the "inevitable result of sin." It's not a penalty in the sense of man's justice, which is arbitrary. Another way of putting it is that death comes as a natural consequence of sin. It's not something God imposes upon sinners because the law requires Him to do so.

The following passage makes this clear:



This passage tells us that death is "the inevitable result of sin," and gives insight as to why this is the case. We note that had God *left* Satan to reap the result of his sin, he would have perished, so death is not something which God causes to happen for those who sin, but something which God allows to happen, and only because that is what those who have rejected Him have chosen.

Had God allowed Satan to perish at the beginning, the angels would not have understood that death is the inevitable result of sin. It took the cross to make this clear.

I've never disputed this point. God also offered sinners pardon and salvation for 4,000 years before Jesus died. He even took 3 men to heaven before Jesus died. But the offer of pardon and salvation was predicated on Jesus living and dying the perfect life and death between 4 BC and 31 AD. Otherwise, no such offer could have been made. It makes no sense to allow sinners to live a life of sin without a shred of hope. It would serve no purpose.

Law and justice required the immediate visitation of death. This aspect of law and justice was fulfilled in Jesus through His promise to suffer and die in the sinner's stead. His timely death satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice. Without it God would have had no justifiable reason for not immediately executing the death penalty. Jesus' death gives God the legal right to pardon and save penitent sinners instead of having to immediately impose the death sentence in accordance with the requirements of law and justice. Listen:

Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the Son of God. {1SM 230.1}

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


What do you think the following passage means? "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} Your take on it is very much different than mine. What do you think it means? Please be clear and concise. Use your own words. Please don't quote the Bible or the SOP and then expect me to understand your view. Thank you.


In the case of sinners, why do you think law and justice demand death for sin? And, in the case of Jesus, do you think law and justice demanded the death of Jesus so that sinners can be motivated to love and obey God?


I didn't mean to exclude Ellen from the discussion. I merely asked you to prove God would have pardoned Lucifer's sins on condition of repentance and submission without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus.

The fact Jesus was required to die implies a legal requirement. If His death was required merely to motivate sinners to love and obey God by demonstrating self-sacrificing love then it would not have involved the honor and integrity of law and justice. Nor would it have involved condemnation and judgment in consequence of breaking the law.

"The wages of sin is death" - not pardon and salvation on condition of loving and obeying God and not sinning any more. The law demands death for sin. It does not offer pardon and the annulment of the death penalty on condition of obedience. Nor does it demand the substitutionary death of Jesus. Death must happen in consequence of sin. This requirement cannot be disregarded and expect to preserve the security of the Universe.

"There could have been no pardon for sin had this atonement not been made." Why not? "Had God pardoned Adam's sin without an atonement, sin would have been immortalized, and would have been perpetuated with a boldness that would have been without restraint."

Tom, you seem to think the reason Jesus had to die was because it was the only way to reach sinners, to touch their hearts, to impress them with the self-sacrificing love of God, to motivate them to love and obey God. And yet you argue that this view is in no way in harmony with the moral influence theory. How so? Since you reject the legal aspect as I've articulated it above I don't see any difference between your view and the moral influence theory. Please explain. Thank you.

I agree with you that there are significant differences between men and angels so far as sin and salvation are concerned. However, the reverse of what you said makes more sense to me. For example, since A&E barely knew God, and since Eve was deceived into eating the forbidden fruit, and since Adam simply resolved to share her fate - it makes more sense to me for God to have offered them a second chance without driving them out of Eden and implementing the plan of salvation.

The angels, on the other hand, knew better. They knew God very well, especially Lucifer. They had lived for years and years as loyal subjects of God's kingdom. Nobody deceived Lucifer into rebelling against God. He was the highest ranking FMA in the Universe. No one knew God better than he did. In fact, he knew God so well that there was nothing else God could do to recommend His love more fully. Not even the self-sacrificing death of Jesus would have demonstrated anything he didn't already know perfectly. Under the circumstances it makes perfect sense to me that there was nothing God could do to save angels should they venture to sin.

BTW, do you agree with Tom that redeemed beings, after living for millions of years in the New Earth, could willfully sin (theoretically ) without incurring the wrath of God, and that they could recover from it and resume living in harmony with His will without further consequences? If not, why not? IOW, do you agree with me that FMAs eventually reach a state where they cannot sin and repent, that to sin after this state is reached is to commit the unpardonable sin?

Thank you for verifying my point. However, as GC has pointed out, the cases of men and angels are so vastly different we cannot draw concrete conclusions and apply them across the board to both men and angels as if their cases are identical.

Also, as GC has pointed out, there is no concrete evidence to suggest God would have actually pardoned Lucifer's sin without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. You are right in saying Ellen describes God offering Lucifer pardon. But offering pardon and actually granting it are two entirely different realities.

Since Lucifer rejected God's offer of pardon we will never know how it would have played out. Unless of course one assumes Jesus' death serves only to motivate sinners to love and obey God and to cease sinning, then, no, it would not have worked in Lucifer's case. He was beyond being impressed with the love of God more than he already was. Reasoning didn't work either.

In fact, God had no recourse to reclaim Lucifer from the precipice of sin and death. The moment he bent his energies in the path of rebellion he was hopeless. Yes, God offered to pardon and reinstate him on condition of repentance and submission, but God, who knows the end from the beginning, knew Lucifer would pursue his rebellion to the bitter end.

But knowing this about Lucifer did not deter God from being a God of love, from offering him pardon again and again until it was too late. Jesus demonstrated this enduring attribute of God's love as He repeatedly labored with Judas knowing that in the end it would come to naught, that it would end in treason and suicide. But God is God and He cannot help but plead with sinners to leave off sinning and learn to love and obey Him for their own good and for the good of the Universe. "How shall I give thee up," He says - until it is too late.

According to your definition of arbitrary, Jesus' death on the cross was arbitrary. It was imposed on Him. It was inflicted on Him. And, He voluntarily submitted to it. He could have summoned the angelic army and made his escape. But He didn't. He saw it through to the end - and He was triumphant! He tasted the second death for us, but he didn't succumb to it. Instead, He conquered the cup of woe and trembling. He accomplished what He came to do before He died and then He laid down His own life. No one took it from Him.

It is the radiant firelight of God's glory that causes sinners to suffer and die. Here you seem to be implying it is sin that causes sinners to suffer and die.


How do you explain the fact the angels were totally cool with God commanding them to punish and destroy sinners before the Jesus died on the cross? Listen:

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. {GC 614.2}

No, you did dispute this for awhile. Then you stopped. You have also disputed that Satan sinned, even though we are told that Satan was given the chance to "confess his sin" before being banished from heaven, and that he would have been restored to his position had he done so. I've never understood this.

Regarding the rest of the post, it's predicated on a belief which Lucifer's case disproves, which was my point in bring up Lucifer. Rather than change your mind, however, you at first argued that "pardon" did not mean what it normally meant, and wanted a statement which explicitly said that Satan sinned. I pointed out that wouldn't do any good, that you would just say that "sin" didn't mean what it ordinarily meant, and this is exactly what happened. You were presented with a statement which said that Satan was given the opportunity to "confess his sin," but you responded that "sin" did not mean what it ordinarily means.

So I don't see any future in this discussion. If you can simply say that words don't mean what they ordinarily mean when they disagree with the position you're holding, how can one go on from there?

You seem to be implying mercy and justice are one and same thing. But isn't it true that mercy is mercy only because justice is justice? Were it not for justice mercy would cease to be mercy - it would simply be.

You say it's "firelight." The SOP doesn't say this. The SOP says that the glory of God is His character. It says, "the glory of Him who is love" will destroy them. "Love" has to do with character, not with "firelight."

I'm not simply implying that it is sin that causes sinners to suffer and die, I've been saying this all along. Death is the inevitable result of sin, which is simply another way of saying that sin causes death. James says this by saying that "sin, when it is finished, brings forth death."



"It took the cross to make this clear."

Justice is administered by way of mercy and compassion. If they were the same thing, Zechariah would have said that justice is administered by justice, which wouldn't make much sense.

If you'll look at what I wrote, I said that justice in Scripture is most often restorative. This is easily verified, MM, by simply looking at Scripture.

Yes, and I have you to thank for that. I have learned a lot by studying with you. I am deeply indebted to you. Thank you.

Now I believe God did indeed offer to pardon Lucifer. Although Lucifer was not yet guilty of open sin and rebellion his actions, nevertheless, required pardon should he consent to the terms of his reinstatement. Not until he was fully convinced that to pursue his course further it would constitute a sin and then made the decision to continue at all cost did he become guilty of sin - which is also when God stopped offering to pardon him. Given his exalted state and sinless condition his first sin was unpardonable. Not that God was stubbornly unwilling to pardon him. No way!!! But he was incapable of repenting and being restored to righteousness.

Ellen says it is the "light" of the glory of God that causes sinners to suffer and die. She also says it is a consuming "fire". Hence - the firelight of God's glory.


It made what clear? That being cool with God commanding them to punish and destroy sinners is right and righteous?

It is not clear that Zechariah intended to say justice is the execution of mercy and compassion. But it is clear that Ellen saw mercy and justice as opposites in tension. Listen:

Justice and Mercy stood apart, in opposition to each other, separated by a wide gulf. The Lord our Redeemer clothed His divinity with humanity, and wrought out in behalf of man a character that was without spot or blemish. He planted His cross midway between heaven and earth, and made it the object of attraction which reached both ways, drawing both Justice and Mercy across the gulf. Justice moved from its exalted throne, and with all the armies of heaven approached the cross. There it saw One equal with God bearing the penalty for all injustice and sin. With perfect satisfaction Justice bowed in reverence at the cross, saying, It is enough (MS 94, 1899). {7BC 936.1}

Thank you. I've appreciated our discussions as well.



If he hadn't sinned, he wouldn't have been offered pardon. Pardon is for sin.



Yes, this is what you keep saying. But it doesn't make sense. Just look at what you're saying!

A.As long as Satan didn't need pardon, God kept offering it to him, over and over again.
B.As soon as Satan did need it, God stopped offering it to him.

Certainly doesn't speak well of God.



This is clearly wrong.



He was given the opportunity to "confess his sin," so obviously his first sin could not have been unpardonable.



I agree with this.

That's cute, but it doesn't work. First of all, she says that the light of the glory of God, *which gives life to the righteous*, will slay the wicked. (By the way, this is the same idea as Isaiah, I think chapter 33, which speaks of the everlasting burnings. "Who can dwell with the everlasting burnings? The righteous." Isa. 33:14, 15 I think.) It doesn't make sense to say that "firelight" gives life to the righteous. However, that the revelation of the character of God is spiritual truth. Jesus spoke of this in John 17, in his prayer.

The "light of the glory of God" means "the revelation of God's character." The very next sentence bears this out, which speaks of Christ as "the revealer of God's character." Really, I can't imagine what more proof one would desire than that!

So we've got 4 things at least to consider:

1.The same thing which gives life to the righteous will slay the wicked (firelight doesn't give life to the righteous).
2.Isaiah 33 brings out the same thought. (Who can dwell with the everlasting burnings? The righteous).
3.John 17 brings out that the revelation of God's character gives life.
4.The very next sentence makes clear that "the light of the glory of God" = "the revelation of God's character."



It made clear the death is the inevitable result of sin.



Zechariah said that justice is administered by mercy and compassion. Actually, he quoted God, who said that. And we see this truth revealed in Jesus' life.

Again, if you simply look at how the word "justice" is used in Scripture, you will see that a majority of the time it is used in the sense of restorative justice. The idea is to set things right. Ellen White brings out this idea here:



The "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was to set men right by revealing God's character. A beautiful thought, isn't it?