Lesson #10 - Atonement at the CROSS

Here is the link to the study and discussion material for this lesson study:

http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/08d/less10nkjv.html

This should prove to be a very interesting week of study and discussion that should also take us into another interesting class discussion on Sabbath, December 6th.

The Summary: "On the cross, Jesus experienced the fullness of the sinner’s eternal separation from God. God Himself was in Christ paying the penalty for sin, atoning for our sins."

What is the penalty for sin?

Why was it necessary for Jesus to pay the penalty for sin?

How did paying the penalty for sin atone for our sins?

Sunday's section is titled, Anguish: Heading to Gethsemane.

If it wasn't necessary for Christ to die for us, then why did He go through all that anguish?

I think an important question to consider is what is the problem that needs to be fixed. For example, if the problem is that Satan has deceived man into believing lies about God, which in turn led man to distrust God, which in turn led man to rebel, then the solution would be to reveal the truth about God, so that in instead of distrusting God and rebelling man could believe in God, receive forgiveness, and live in harmony with God and the principles of His government.

Or if the problem is a legal problem, then the solution would be a legal one; Christ's dying so that God would be legally able to pardon.

Or one could say that there were multiple problems involved, and the same solution solved these multiple problems.

Of course there are multiple problems: we aren't monotonous robots...

What do you make of "the curse of the law": what does that mean, how it is suffered, and what is gained from that? You appear to regard legal issues as consequential, but that's an inadequate view of the nature of law, which initially recognises reality but moreover re-orders reality as well, as the everlasting covenant has done with us and God and us: called redeeming the lost in process of dealing with the invention of sin and our state of sinfulness.

Beyond your relationship or law question, which is very shallow given the size of the issues, what is the nature of sin and righteousness? Are these a choice or a state of being and/or mind? That's the beginning of the problem/solution equation, and where the law divides all men from God.

From Wednesday's section

Suffering condemnation and divine wrath for sin on behalf of sinners may easily be termed the penalty for sin. The "sundering of the divine powers" is another true statement.

There's a blurring of the difference between Godhead as a group concept - not its original meaning, and the trinity which originally is 3 persons in one substance: Godhead as a group is colloquial for 3 persons of one substance, which is different.

Otherwise there's that little misstatement which pervades Christian literature: "atone for sin". That's not Biblical: it's supposed to be "atone for us", while "dying for sin", and "propitiation for sin" is quite correct.

"Dying for sin" is ambiguous. "Dying because of sin" makes sense, or "dying for us." "Giving His life for us" is even better.

Ambiguous for you, sadly: Rom 8:3 is clear: God sent his Son in sinful flesh "and for sin". Since he is the propitiation fo sin then he died for sin: that's the legal fulfilment of the everlasting covenant, among other things.

I'm talking about English. I'm making a comment about English diction; to say that Christ "died for sin" is ambiguous. It's ambiguous because it's not clear what this means.

The New King James Version has



which is clearer English.



There is nothing in Scripture which says this, specifically that "Since He is the propitiation for sin, then he died for sin."

The NIV reads "to be a sin offering", but the margin reverts to the AV "for sin". The NKJV is suggesting the alternative wording, repeated in Rom 4:25, of "because of", or "on account of", is it? As much as Rom 4:25 reads better translated "because of", showing the cause and effect of the death of Christ, Rom 8:3 is saying much the same: suffering the punishment for sin, that believers may follow the example Jesus gave us, which he practised daily and literally suffered for us: "deny self, take up your cross daily, and follow" the Spirit's leading - that is, Christ's leading.

If Christ did not die to self and sin on the cross, for our sin, then are we lost in sin and baptism has no meaning.

Your philosophising, Tom, is apparently endangering the Gospel's achievement of saving the world from sin and death...

AFAIK, my thoughts regarding the atonement are the same as Waggoner's, who had "heavenly credentials." Was he philosophizing too?

Why can't someone have a different idea than others without being ostracized? It's interesting to see what the viewpoints are of those who do this sort of thing. It certainly doesn't speak well of the view of those who do this!

I don't see why you would accuse me of "philosophizing" simply because I'm pointing out clearer ways of expression in English. Regardless, no matter what I was saying, it would be better to simply point out what you disagree with, leaving aside personal comments, which is in accordance with the rules of this forum.

As to the content of your post, I agree with what you wrote. You kept to the text in your comments.

The moral influence theory, and similar theories, do not adequately answer the questions - Why did Jesus have to die? What did His death accomplish? I like how they explain the way Jesus' death can motivate people to repent and to love and obey God. But it doesn't seem to offer satisfactory explanations as to how His death satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice as it pertains to pardon and past sins. Empowering people to sin no more does not deal with the problem of past sins. God cannot simply ignore past sins. They must be dealt with appropriately. I cannot not help thinking Jesus' death accommodates past sins and makes everything right. Ellen seems to agree:

"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}

I like the following explanations:

In other words, Christ had to die in order to provide atonement for the whosoever will of John 3:16.

The "Great Controversy" theory, or "Christus Victor" (non-SDA closest equivalent) adequately answers the question.



Since Christ's death was part of His own mission on earth, we have here an adequate explanation for its purpose.



John 3:16 says that God gave His only Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish. How this leads to an unbeliever being saved is explained nicely here:



Clearly the death of Christ was necessary in order for this to happen. So your statement, that Christ had to die in order to provide the atonement of John 3:16 is true.

Tom, I do not see where your view accounts for past sins. How does the plan of salvation, as you view it, deal with the problem of past sins?

Daryl, yes, the reason God can promise what He does in John 3:16 is because Jesus earned the legal right on the cross to pardon and save penitent sinners by paying their sin debt of death. Without the substitutionary death of Jesus, God would have no legal right to pardon penitent sinners. Being penitent is not sufficient to atone for past sins. Neither is ceasing to sin, that is, not sinning anymore is not sufficient to atone for past sins. Death must come in consequence of sin. "That he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Rom 3:23) IOW, God must justify pardoning and saving sinners instead of "immediately visiting death upon them". Jesus death is all the justification God needs. It thoroughly satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice.

This is what pardon is about; past sins.



There's nothing whatsoever about this in John 3:16, or anywhere else in John for that matter. This is simply reading into what's written's one own personal ideas as opposed to reading what the text actually says. And this is such a simple text!

God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

What is the text talking about?

1.God so loved the world that He gave His Son.
2.This was for the purpose of giving us eternal life, saving us from perishing.
3.This happens when we believe in Christ.

This is what the text is saying, not anything about earning legal rights to pardon. Here again is the EGW text I quoted:



This asks the question, how then are we to be saved? The answer is an explanation of John 3:16. We are saved as we "Behold the Lamb of God" and respond to the light shining from the cross which reveals the love of God. If we do not resist this love, we are led to repent for the sins that crucified Christ.

Why, how, does Christ's death supply pardon if it is merely a proof of love for this sinful world? - if it is nothing of a legal nature, why is pardon suddenly sought because of it rather then Jesus' preaching or miracles? "Pardon" is a legal concept and action, not so: called forgiveness? How can love by itself allow forgiveness for rebellion & treason?


What relevance has the Lamb of God to God giving his Son to the world out of love? You haven't linked the two in any way: furthermore, What do you make of Ellen White's support of subsitutionary atonement for sinners - this is a separate issue right here...to do with her reasoning, NOT yours!

Jesus died to make it possible for us to be healed. Notice while on earth He walked around and healed people. He didnt go around legally defending criminals in court and getting everybody off. He could have, He would have been a great lawyer no doubt but that would misrepresent the plan of salvation. His goal was to heal and restore. He didnt come to take away our sins He came to take away sinfulness from our heart, mind, and character, to cure the race and return us to full unity and harmony with God. Love overcame selfishness once and for all. Did He turn the race around legally or literally?

I've never said, "It is merely a proof of love for this sinful world."



I've never said, "it is nothing of a legal nature."

What I've argued against is the idea that God needs the death of Jesus Christ in order to be legal able to pardon us.



I don't know what you're asking here.



"Pardon" in Scripture is not primarily a legal concept, not by a long ways. All one needs to do to establish this is simply look through Scripture and see how the word is used.

You're looking at "pardon" through the lens of modern Western justice, with a very narrow focus.

Let's consider what is perhaps the most famous text in Scripture dealing with pardon. This is from the Lord's prayer:



Do you think Jesus had a legal concept in mind here? We should forgive those who trespass against us legally?



It can't. I've often made this point, but this isn't primarily a legal concept. I've quoted from "God is Love" many times on this, on the chapter called something like "The Death of Christ Upholds the Law of God." I don't have the quote on this computer, so can't quote it right now.



I didn't understand your last question, or point, whichever it was, but in regards to linking "Behold the lamb of God" to John 3:16, the link is right in the quote I cited:



Here's another text which makes the same link:



The linking principle is "look and live." By beholding the love of God revealed in Christ, we are drawn to repentance. If we do not resist this drawing, we will be healed (i.e. saved).

IS THAT A L L ? ? ! Why should God's love by itself win us over: why should it prove he would forgive us, give us repentance???...We are condemned by the law, which Christ upheld by his life, teaching, healing, and death: why, how can God's love by itself sort out that?

What do you make of Ellen White's support of penal substitution and substitutionary atonement?

Well, here's the text:



If I missed something here, would you point it out please?



I don't understand this question. Why shouldn't it? This is what the love of God does; it leads us to repentance.



We are condemned by the law because of sin. We need to be saved, or healed, from sin. Christ's healing sorts that out.



I make of it that it is subordinate to a principle, which she explains here:



What was the object of his mission? "The revelation of God to the world." She writes that this was the "whole purpose" of His mission on earth. Therefore the substitutionary atonement should be viewed in this context.

Where we differ is in what we perceive the problem to be, which effects the solution. You perceive the problem to be primarily a legal one, it appears to me. Let's consider three sources, Scripture, Ellen White, and the 1888 message. Regarding Scripture, at the time it was written, no one perceived the concepts you are presenting. It wasn't a mode of thought anywhere in the world at that time. It could not have been presented by any Jew, because no Jew had the concept that God could not legally forgive sin unless a sacrifice enabled Him to do so. Not only is there no evidence in Scripture, there's no evidence in any extra-Scriptural books either that any Jew had the concepts in mind that Hodges and Calvin discussed. The penal substitution theory is a modern phenomena, in terms of when Scripture was written.

Where did Jesus Christ present the idea that God could not legally forgive us unless He died?

On the other hand, Scripture is replete with the concepts I've been presenting, which I believe you recognize (as I don't believe you dispute the atonement concepts I've been presenting, but simply disagree with what I've denied).

In terms of Ellen White, if the problem were as has been suggested, a legal one which required the death of Christ, this principle would have applied equally to Lucifer. Lucifer broke the law, the law requires death in order for God to pardon, so God could not have offered Lucifer pardon unless Christ had died. But God did so. Indeed, He did so "again and again." This makes it clear that she could not have had the same framework in mind that you do. You could not have written the things that she did in regards to Lucifer's fall, given your paradigm.

In terms of the 1888 message, the concepts I've been presenting are in harmony with the concepts the 1888 messengers presented. They didn't present the concept that God could not legally pardon sin without the death of Christ. Waggoner wrote:







These are passages I've quoted. I've read a great deal of Waggoner, and cannot recall anything he's said on this subject, or related, that I disagree with. It appears to me that I've been presenting the same concepts he did. So if I'm an error, at least I have good company!

You didn't answer the question - How does the plan of salvation, as you view it, deal with the problem of past sins? That is, how not what. Unless, of course, you mean to say pardon is the how and the what. But if so, why, then, did God say, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"? Why didn't He say, I will pardon you? Why establish and implement a law which condemns sinners and demands death? “In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” (CON 22)

Indeed, Jesus earned the legal right to pardon and save penitent sinners. God sacrificed His Son “that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” (Romans 3:26) “By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” (6BC 1095)

“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)

The how is by pardon. This does answer the question.





When a person is justified by faith, his sins are pardoned.

Waggoner explains as follows:



This is similar to the EGW quotations I've cited several times, from COL (talking about the publican) and the DA quote talking about how to be saved.

Tom, you seem to have overlooked the following points. Saying God deals with past sins by pardoning them does not address the points raised. Both death and pardon are required, not merely pardon. Pardon does not do away with the death requirement. Death must happen in consequence of sin. The substitutionary death of Jesus exhausted the death penalty and made pardon possible. His death met both requirements.

PS - Seems like you, Tom, should be able to admit that both death and pardon were required. Your version of the MITH advocates that Jesus' death was necessary, right? Under these circumstances, doesn't "necessary" and "requirement" mean essentially the same thing? That is, since Jesus' death was the only way for God to influence and motivate sinners to love and obey Him wasn't it, therefore, a requirement?

Jesus' death certainly wasn't an option if God hoped to win back sinners, right? God's options were two: 1) to die, or 2) not to die. If Jesus had chosen not to die, then sinners would have been unable to love and obey God thus making it impossible for Him to pardon and save them. Consequently, Jesus' death was required for God to pardon sinners. Jesus had to die to make it possible for God to pardon sinners.

I haven't overlooked this. You've asked this same question many times. I've responded by quoting from Fifield, which I'll do again. I believe the issue being raised is the same which Fifield eloquently deals with. This is from a chapter called, "THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST HONORS GOD’S LAW." This whole chapter deals with the question you are raising. For space considerations, I just quote a portion of it, but I can quote the whole thing if you're interested.





You're confused if you think what I've been presenting is the Moral Influence Theory. It isn't. So this is a FOTAP question.



Christ's death accomplished much more than this, of course, but in terms of your question, one could certainly look at this as something which was necessary, or required.



Yes, and I've pointed this out. This is why I try to be careful when speaking of Jesus' having to die in order for God to be able to pardon sinners. There is a sense in which this is true, which is just what you have explained. I've been arguing against the idea that *God* needed Christ's death, in order to change Him, or enable Him, to do something which He would not be able or disposed to do without that death. As far as God is concerned, He has always been willing and able to pardon, but pardon is a two-way street. The pardon must be received to be effective, so God did what was necessary to make that possible. As Fifield puts it:

*God* in this sense refers to the Godhead, not God the Father.

Ok. My argument has been in reference to God the Father, as this is what the EGW quotes refer to (e.g. in saying that "God bore long with Lucifer" and "again and again" offered Lucifer pardon), and what I think everyone else here has in mind besides you. So what I meant in saying:



was in reference to God the Father. Even though I had this in mind, I think what I wrote would still be true if applied to the Godhead. That is, the Godhead did not need Christ's death in order to offer Lucifer pardon. Given the Godhead did need this pardon for man, but not for Lucifer, there must be some reason for this which applies to man but not for Lucifer.

I think you accept this argument as logically sound, and your argument has been that what was different between man and Lucifer is that Lucifer's sin, or sins, were sin(s) of ignorance, as long as God was willing to pardon him, but as soon as it changed to being a known sin, God was no longer willing to offer Lucifer pardon. You have argued that what Eve did was worse than what Lucifer did.

So I think you have accepted my argument as logically sound, and have countered with a logical argument of your own to meet it. I disagree with the content of your argument, but agree that it's a valid argument.

MM has argued that Lucifer didn't sin at all, until committing his first sin, which was unpardonable, which position seems completely untenable, given that he was given the opportunity to "confess his sin."

Do you agree with this summary?

Now I can say neither you nor Fifield have addressed the quotes and comments and questions I posted. Now you know why I have been reduced to asking you to address them so many times. How many more times will I have to ask before you finally address them?


Again, you seem to have misread what I wrote. Here it is again for your convenience: "Your version of the MITH advocates that Jesus' death was necessary, right?" Please note that I didn't say you have been presenting the MITH. I referred to it as a *version* of the MITH. Here's how I think your views are similar to the MITH: You believe Jesus' death was the only way for God to influence and motivate sinners to love and obey Him. This is a key component of the MITH.


Okay, so it is perfectly acceptable for me to say - The death of Jesus was required to accomplish His goals. That is, God required it of Himself. The reason this point is important to me is because in the past you seemed to object to using the word "required" in this context.


Okay, so we agree on two of the many reasons the death of Jesus was required, namely, 1) to influence and motivate sinners to love and obey God, which in turn makes it possible for Him 2) to pardon and save them.

But, where we disagree is whether or not the death of Jesus was also required to pay the sin debt of death for the sins of the world, to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice (two important attributes of God's character), namely, that the substitutionary death of Jesus must happen in consequence of man's sin, that merely pardoning sinners is not sufficient to redeem them from the curse of the law, that ceasing from sin and faithfully obeying the law from then onward does not provide propitiation for past sins.

Law and justice demand death for sin, therefore, death must happen in consequence of sin. Law and justice do not demand pardon for sin. Neither do they demand that sinners learn to cease sinning. If it were possible to merely pardon sinners, rather than demanding their death, God would have ordered and legislated things accordingly. But He didn't.

Instead, God established things in such a way that death must happen in consequence of sin. To pardon and save sinners, therefore, the substitutionary death of Jesus is required. In this way, and only in this way, the honor and integrity of law and justice are upheld and penitent sinners can be saved and live happily ever after.

Again, listen: "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}

Please name other things Jesus' death accomplished, things that were not already fulfilled before He suffered and died on the cross. Thank you.

Fifield wrote an entire chapter entitled "THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST HONORS GOD’S LAW." Now you may disagree with what he wrote, but it's not fair to say he didn't address the concerns you raised, because he did. He also wrote a chapter called, "The Atonement," and another called, "The Atonement Vicarious," which also deal with these issues.



You're simply not seeing that your questions are being addressed. Rather than just keep asking the same questions, and getting the same answers, spend some time looking at the answers, and try to understand how they address your questions. I offered to provide more material for you to study. I'm happy to do that if you wish.



T:Once again, if you think I've presenting the Moral Influence Theory, you are mistaken. It doesn't look like I misread what you wrote. I don't know why you think this. It seems pretty clear. You say "your version of the MITH." It's not the Moral Influence Theory, nor a version of it, that I'm presenting.



Yes.



This is an odd way of putting it. If your goal in communication is to be clear, I wouldn't put it this way. The other way is clearer, i.e. "The death of Jesus was required to accomplish His goals."



I'm not sure what "this context" is, but I've pointed out what I think is clear, and what is less clear, so hopefully this helps to sort things out.



I would say our disagreement involves that these are different things.



This idea comes short because of the reasons Fifield pointed out.



I agree with Fifield's points on this question. I think your ideas come short, because if they were true, God could not have offered Lucifer pardon as He did. They also don't involve the real problem, which has to do with man, and not with God. All that God did was what man needed in order to be reconciled to God. It's a one way street. As Ty Gibson puts it, God was already where He needed to be, very much in love with us.



I agree with Fifield's explanation of this. Again, if your view of this were true, God could not have offered Lucifer pardon, as He did; Christ's death would have had to have been involved.

There is a nice list in "It Is Finished." Why don't you put together a list, and we can review it together.

Neither you, nor anything you have quoted from Fifield, comes anywhere close to explaining the following insights:

Law and justice demand death for sin, therefore, death must happen in consequence of sin. Law and justice do not demand pardon for sin. Neither do they demand that sinners learn to cease sinning. If it were possible to merely pardon sinners, rather than demanding their death, God would have ordered and legislated things accordingly. But He didn't.

Instead, God established things in such a way that death must happen in consequence of sin. To pardon and save sinners, therefore, the substitutionary death of Jesus is required. In this way, and only in this way, the honor and integrity of law and justice are upheld and penitent sinners can be saved and live happily ever after.

Again, listen: "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}

According to the chapter "It is Finished", Jesus' death accomplished the following things:

1. It clearly revealed to unfallen FMAs the character of Satan's rebellion. Page 758.

2. It demonstrated that mercy does not cancel out justice, thereby demonstrating the love of God. Page 762.

3. It guaranteed the destruction of sin and sinners. Page 764.

4. It assured the redemption of penitent sinners. Page 764.

5. It made the universe eternally secure. Page 764.

Excellent! My list:

1.Rebellion is not overcome by force. Satan was given the opportunity to demonstrate the fruits of his government. Page 759
2.By making clear the character of Satan, he was defeated in the GC. Page 761
3.A means was provided, by beholding the love of God, that man could be drawn back to God. Page 762
4.Both justice and mercy coexist, with neither one destroying the other, and the law of God is shown to be righteous, and shown to be capable of being obeyed. Page 762
5.The wicked are destroyed by their own choice, as opposed to an act of God upon them, by choosing to separate themselves from God. A life of rebellion places them so out of harmony with God, that his presence becomes to them a consuming fire. Page 764
6.The Universe was made secure. Page 764

Neither you, nor anything you have quoted from Fifield, comes anywhere close to explaining the following insights:

Law and justice demand death for sin, therefore, death must happen in consequence of sin. Law and justice do not demand pardon for sin. Neither do they demand that sinners learn to cease sinning. If it were possible to merely pardon sinners, rather than demanding their death, God would have ordered and legislated things accordingly. But He didn't.

Instead, God established things in such a way that death must happen in consequence of sin. To pardon and save sinners, therefore, the substitutionary death of Jesus is required. In this way, and only in this way, the honor and integrity of law and justice are upheld and penitent sinners can be saved and live happily ever after.

Again, listen: "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}

MM, I've quoted many times from Fifield where he deals with this. He has a whole chapter called, "The Sacrifice of Christ Honors God's Law." This chapter is dealing with this theme. I've quoted at length from that chapter.

Again, if the way you are looking things were correct, then Christ's death would have been required in order for God to offer Lucifer pardon.



I think this is misleading, or at least somewhat vague, the reason being is it sounds as if God could have established things in such a way that sin would not result in death. The reason sin results in death is described here:



This death isn't something God "establishes," (it's not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God) but the result of the what the sinner himself has chosen to do, separating himself from God, who is "the fountain of life."

The following EGW quote posted by MM tells me that Christ had to die in order for us to receive pardon:

There's no doubt Christ had to die in order for us to receive pardon. The question is why? If it were something God-related (some requirement He needed) then the same requirement should have been necessary for Him to be able to offer pardon to Lucifer, but it wasn't. Therefore the reason for Christ's death being necessary must lie elsewhere.

There are two possibilities to consider:

1) Angelic salvation is effected in a different way than human salvation.
2) Jesus planned to die to offer Lucifer pardon.


Maxwell says He could have.


Did Jesus experience this death? If He did, how did He manage to do that, since He did not sin?

Regarding 1), we're told what the conditions were for Lucifer's being pardoned, which were repentance and submission. Had he complied, he not only would have been forgiven, but restored to his original position, such is the graciousness of God.

Regarding 2), there's no hint of this.



I'm aware of a statement where he talks about God's setting up prisons where the wicked could spend eternity, but I understand him to be giving this not as an argument that God could have established things in a way where sin would not result in death, but as to why God was not willing to prolong death for all eternity. I'm not aware of any statement of Maxwell's where he says God could have established things so that sin would not result in death.

Sin would cause death immediately, if not for God's intervention. FW 21 speaks to this. Also DA 764.



Yes, He experienced it(or "tasted" it, as per Heb. 2:9). As to how He could experience death without having sinned, Isa. 53, 2 Cor. 5:21, John 1:29, Gal. 4:4,5 speak to this, to name just a few.

Is this any different than what is required of man? If repentance and submission are good enough for Satan, wouldn't it have been good enough for Adam?


An argument from ignorance is always weak. Just because we don't know it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. God doesn't have to tell us all there is to know, since we have a hard enough time with the basics.


The missing piece is God's willingness, not His ability. That means God could.


If God's intervention keeps sin from immediately killing us, it can be said that the lack of God's intervention is what kills sinners eventually.


I don't see how these verses explain that Jesus died as a result of the what He Himself has chosen to do. Since He didn't "do" sin, something else must have killed Him.

I don't think so. Do you agree?



I believe so.



Ignorance? I take it you mean from silence? Well, given in what detail Ellen White went to in describing the fall of Lucifer, the onus would certainly be on one wishing to add to what she wrote.[/quote]



The point isn't that God isn't able to prolong death as long as He wishes. The principle that death is the inevitable result of sin would still be true in this case.



That would be a rather contorted way of looking at it.



You don't see Isa. 53 as explaining that Jesus died as a result of what He Himself chose to do?



Certainly Christ did not die because He "did" sin. But neither Isa. 53, nor the other verses cited suggest this

Exactly my point. Death - the death that sin causes - can be caused by other things.

It seems to me that sin caused the death of Christ, but it wasn't His sin. When you say that the death which sin causes can be caused by other things, what do you have in mind?

My understanding is that sin and death are inextricably linked together; you don't get one without the other. For example, "the sting of death is sin," "sin, when it is finished, brings for death," "the inevitable result of sin is death," to name a few.

A thought from Waggoner:

The way I see it usually happens, death is simply a lack of life. That's why sin, which separates us from the Source of life, causes death. And that separation happens because sin so damages our character, not just our thoughts and actions, that we are unable to live with God. So far so good, I trust.

If this is the ONLY way that death happens, how can Jesus go through this, since His character was ever holy? How did He manage to get separated from God? Moreover, how can MY sin or YOUR sin or any other third party's sin cause Jesus to suffer "the result of the what the sinner himself has chosen to do"?

Those fallacies are often used interchangeably, but I prefer "ignorance" since it is difficult to know for certain if someone has been completely silent on a particular topic, especially one as prolific as EGW. (See http://www.logicalfallacies.info/argumentfromignorance.html)

In any case, it is poor logic to make any conclusion based on what one does not know. This reminds me of another discussion where people where saying that black holes are not what physicists think they are, even though they don't know what physicists think they are, because that's not how God works.

As for the detail EGW went into in describing Satan's fall, that still does not give us license to conclude anything about what she did not describe. God went into great detail in His instructions regarding the sanctuary in Exodus, but there was no mention there of the timing of Christ's crucifixion.

Well, we do know what the conditions for pardon were: repentance and submission. We also know that Christ did not have to die in order for God to offer Lucifer pardon. This is what I've been asserting, and there's no necessity of depending on an argument from silence, since these these things are known. If you wish to assert that Christ would have died, had Lucifer accepted the pardon, then *that* would be an argument from silence.

How do you know that? Do you have a quote that positively makes this assertion? I'd like to see it, because that would settle this point, among others.


I do not wish to make that assertion at this time. But if I ever do, you can be sure its foundation will be more substantial than prefacing it with, "We all know...." because we don't all know.

It's simply a fact. Christ had not died, and God offered Lucifer pardon. There's no need for a quote to establish this.



Do you mean "We also know"? Again, regarding that Christ did not have to die in order for God to offer Lucifer pardon, we know this is true from the simple fact that God offered Lucifer pardon, and Christ had not died.

If we were satisfied with that level of evidence, things would be very easy to establish indeed, but will become hopelessly contradictory in short order. Why? Because it is also "simply a fact" that Christ did have to die to offer Lucifer pardon. How do we know? Because He eventually did die.

See? Easy, yet contradictory. Are you sure you want to go down this path of hermeneutics?


God offered Adam pardon, and Christ had not died. Should we take that to mean that Christ's death was not necessary for the salvation of man?

Regarding Adam, that the offer of pardon was tied to the sacrifice of Christ was made clear from the beginning:



In regards to Lucifer, Lucifer's pardon is not tied to Christ's death in any way, although many pages are dedicated to the subject.

Daryl, this passage is as plain as day, isn't it? It's hard to imagine anyone reading this and then concluding Jesus did not have to die to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. It is equally as hard to imagine how anyone reading this can go away thinking, "Jesus did not have to die to earn the legal right to pardon penitent sinners."

Regarding Jesus earning the right to pardon and save us, Ellen wrote:


Why did Jesus have to die? Was it only to fully reveal the nature of sin, rebellion, salvation, and the love of God to motivate sinners to love and obey God, to vindicate the kingdom and character of God, and to justify the punishment and destruction of sin-hardened sinners in the lake of fire? Or, was His death also required because law and justice demand death for sin?

Again, Ellen makes it too plain to misunderstand. She wrote, "In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin." {Con 21.3} "By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors." {6BC 1095.4} "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}

Why did Jesus have to die? In addition to everything else Jesus had to die because law and justice demanded it! God set it up this way from the foundation of the world. The security and happiness of the Universe depends upon God upholding law and justice. Those selfish, ungrateful souls who sin and rebel and despise the self-sacrificing love of Jesus, who look to the cross and feel nothing, who spit in the face of God, are deserving of severe vengeance and retribution. They must be punished according to their mean and nasty and ugly ways and manners. They must suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. And then justice shall be served.

Does this sound mean and nasty and ugly? Listen as the Bible speaks the mind of holy beings:


It is righteous indignation that causes holy beings to feel this way about sinners who despise the cross of Christ.

Tom, it amazes me you continue to believe God offering to pardon Lucifer is proof Jesus did not have to die to earn the legal right to pardon and save us. The cases of men and angels are so different it is impossible to compare the two and walk away with concrete conclusions. Besides, you are putting words in Ellen's mouth. She did not draw the same conclusions. She made it abundantly clear that no provision existed to save angels should they venture to sin. She says the exact opposite of men. She also agrees with the Bible that death must happen in consequences of sin, that pardon comes with a price, and that price is death. The fact God has never pardoned a sinner without also requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus is evidence God cannot pardon sinners without it.

"But no provision had been made to save those [angels] who should venture to transgress His law." {SR 18.2}

"If [Satan] could in any way beguile [Adam and Eve] to disobedience, God would make some provision whereby they might be pardoned, and then himself and all the fallen angels would be in a fair way to share with them of God's mercy." {SR 27.3}

"Angels held communication with Adam after his fall, and informed him of the plan of salvation, and that the human race was not beyond redemption. Although fearful separation had taken place between God and man, yet provision had been made through the offering of His beloved Son by which man might be saved. But their only hope was through a life of humble repentance and faith in the provision made. All those who could thus accept Christ as their only Saviour, should be again brought into favor with God through the merits of His Son. {SR 56.1}

Tom, it sounds like you are saying repentance and submission would have been sufficient to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. But if pardon and salvation can be secured by something sinners do, or can be motivated to do, then God would be indebted to them. Pardon and salvation would be the fruit of creature merit. Listen:


The cross of Christ is required to lead sinners to repentance. The cross motivates them to repent and submit to God. Without the cross it would be impossible for sinners, including Lucifer, to repent and obey God. Listen:


These passages make it amazingly clear that sinners cannot repent without the cross. And yet I hear you saying Lucifer was capable of repenting and submitting to God without Jesus having to die. You also said "if repentance and submission [would have been] good enough for Satan" that it would also "have been good enough for Adam".

How do you reconcile what you believe and what we read about the cross and repentance in the Bible and in the SOP? Again, what we read is that 1) sinners cannot repent without the cross, that 2) they cannot be pardoned without repentance, that 3) repentance "has in it nothing of the nature of merit", and that 4) there is no "assured value in repentance to buy for him forgiveness".

You said Lucifer could have repented without the cross. You also said Adam could have repented without the cross. And yet you didn't back up your assertions with inspired quotes. Please do so. And, please do not cite the passages which say God offered to pardon Lucifer and then insist they imply God would not have also required the death of Jesus. Since they do not say so, neither should you.

What you're saying is extremely radical, the onus, therefore, is upon you to support it with passages which plainly state your position. By "plainly state" I mean passages which do not require interpretation or extrapolation. For it to be true someone other than you, someone inspired of God, must spell it out in words so plain a child can grasp it, in words too plain to require interpretation or extrapolation, in words too clear and simple to misunderstand.

wow, brother!!! well, we are certainly clear on how you feel about "those kinds of people". but may i remind you that "those" are us? we do despite to our Savior every single day, whether we are conscious of it or not.

you read your feelings into those verses. i believe they are more matter-of-fact statements and even probably written with much sadness and tears at the loss of those wilful souls-who we hope and pray do not turn out to be us.

as for whether or not Jesus would have had to sacrifice His life for lucifer/satan and his followers i really dont know. his case may have been different.......

Let's consider this. Your idea is that Christ had to die in order for God to have the legal right to pardon. Once the law is broken, you argue, it is necessary that death occur, in order for God to be able to pardon, because otherwise the law would be broken. This is how I've understood the argument you've presented.

Now Lucifer broke the law. We know this for several reasons. First of all, from Scripture we see that Lucifer was perfect until "iniquity" was found in him. After this "iniquity" was found in him, we read that God bore long with Lucifer, and again and again offered him pardon. The fact that God offered him pardon is evidence that he broke the law, since, had he not broken the law, he would not have needed to be pardoned for breaking it. In addition there is the evidence that "iniquity" was found in him. In addition, there are descriptions of Lucifer's behavior, such as indulging a spirit of self-exaltation, and harboring hatred and envy in his heart against Christ. We are also told that God was willing to restore Lucifer to his position if he would confess his sin. So the evidence is overwhelming that Lucifer broke the law.

Now you are suggesting the cases are so different they can't be compared. I do see the basis for your assertion here. The salient point we are discussing is if God needs for Christ to die in order for Him to be able to extend pardon to those who break the law. Lucifer broke the law. God offered him pardon. This disproves the idea that God, in general, needs the death of Christ in order to be able to offer pardon.

In regards to your assertion that the cases of man and angels are different, I agree. For man, it was necessary for Christ to die, but for Satan and his followers this was not an option. Why not? Does God love angels any less than men? Such a suggestion seems absurd, doesn't it? Knowing God's character of love, wouldn't God have done all that He could to save angels? Doesn't that make sense?

Given what we know about God, we can safely surmise that this is indeed what God did, that God left no stone unturned in His efforts to keep the angels from being lost. Therefore there must be reasons why the cross of Christ avails for man, but not for angels, which do not involve the legal question of God's being able to offer pardon.

Regarding your first question, I may be in harmony with Arnold on this point, but I'm not sure, as his question may just have been for clarification, so I'm awaiting to see what he has to say before commenting more on this.



What do you mean by this statement, especially in regards to Lucifer? The statements you cited said nothing about Lucifer.



The reverse is actually true here. The onus is on you to support your position, which is, as far as I know, unique to yourself.



Combining this with what you wrote we have:

1.God was willing to pardon Lucifer, if he repented.
2.Lucifer could not repent apart from Christ's death on the cross.
3.Since Lucifer knew nothing about Christ's death on the cross, it was impossible for him to repent.
4.Therefore God offered to pardon Lucifer subject to a condition that it was impossible for Lucifer to meet.

Point 1 is established by the GC statement I quoted. Point 2 is established by your suggestion that Lucifer could not have repented apart from the cross. Point 3 is established by Lucifer's reaction to Gen. 3:15 (see PP; the cross was an unknown idea to Lucifer until then). Point 4 follows as a logical conclusion to the preceding 3 points.

Since the conclusion is absurd, there must be an error in points 1, 2, or 3. Since 1 and 3 are true, 2 must be false.

That's right! This observation reminds me of the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, where the Pharisee prays, "I thank God I'm not like these other people," and we read this parable and think, "I thank God I'm not like that Pharisee," but we are. Fortunately, Christ came to heal the sick.



Surely this must be the case. How can anyone by a child of God and not experience the same emotions as God for His lost ones? God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. We see God's suffering over the lost in Christ's weeping over Jerusalem.

can you believe, tom, that there is a convert to our church who honestly believes that God will hate the lost for eternity? but how many of us deep down really feel the same way? the convert reads the bible literally....

Yes, I think there are people who feel this way. When you ask how many deep down feel the same way, this is the same idea I was bringing out in saying that we thank God we not like the Pharisee.

Christ came to save sinners. When we see ourselves as we are in truth, then we won't see "them" but "us," as you pointed out. We see that if we're saved at last, it will be truly a miracle of God's amazing grace, somehow able to pluck a brand from the fire, in spite of our hardness of heart, unChristlikeness, and all the terrible things we've done.

I agree with you that there are tears in the voices of those who experience righteous indignation. However, I also believe they mean what they say.

Correct.


Yes, Lucifer's behavior, before he was cast down to earth, seems sinful from our point of view. But under the circumstances it was not. God did not count Lucifer guilty of sinning until after he rejected the final appeal and continued pursuing a course he was convinced was sinful and unwarranted. At that point, God stopped offering him pardon.


Tom, I have never asserted what you are accusing me of. Let me set the record straight once and forever. Jesus did NOT have to die for God to offer pardon. He offered pardon for 2,000 years before Jesus died on the cross.


Tom, the idea that Jesus' death would not have motivated angels to love and obey God, that whatever else God did to woo and win them back was better than Jesus dying, well, sounds blasphemous to me. You argue eloquently elsewhere that nothing demonstrates the love of God better than Jesus' death. And now you're arguing that the differences between men and angels nullifies this argument in the case of angels. I am shocked.

It also weakens your other argument, namely, the fact God offered to pardon Lucifer before Jesus died proves His death has nothing to do with Jesus having to die to earn the legal right to pardon men. If, as you say, the differences between men and angels means the death of Jesus would not have motivated angels to side with God against Lucifer, how, then, can you turn around and insist it proves Jesus did not have to die to earn the legal right to pardon men?

It is precisely because of the differences between men and angels that such a conclusion is illogical. Again, offering to pardon is not the same thing as granting pardon. Your point of view makes pardon and salvation dependent on God doing something to motivate sinners to repent so that He can pardon them. This is creature merit plain and simple.

It also ignores the penalty of sin, namely, capital punishment. Even from your point of view it ignores the fact the wages of sin is death. If death is, as you say, the inevitable result of sin, then death must necessarily happen in consequence of sin. Otherwise, death is not the inevitable result of sin.

Are you arguing that Jesus' death is not necessary for sinners to repent? That repentance is possible without the death of Jesus? If so, can you support this idea with inspired statements?

Also, are you willing to apply the same logic you applied to the case of Lucifer to the cases of men?

I hope you are not lumping what I said about about it with the convert you're talking about. I'm not saying you did, but to make the matter as clear as possible I would like to say I do not believe the holy beings mentioned in the quotes I posted hate the sinners they believe are worthy of double punishment. Nor do I believe God will hate them forever.

taking these verses one at a time.



what do these "holy beings" "feel"?



what exactly is it you are hearing them say?

what tom said triggered my memory of the other person. but i can see under the circumstances why it might look otherwise.

No, I'm arguing that your assertion in point 2 is false.



In the case of men, the following applies:

First of all, one of the many things Lucifer did was to hate Christ. This is something he chose to do. I don't see how you can thing that this is something which "seems sinful from our point of view." If anything is sinful, certainly hating Christ is.

Secondly you assert that God did not count Lucifer as guilty of sinning. But He offered him pardon. This disproves this assertion. Pardon is for what? For breaking the law. If Lucifer had not broken the law, he wouldn't have been offered pardon. You don't offer people pardon for *not* breaking a law, but for breaking it.

Thirdly you assert that as soon as Lucifer was guilty of breaking the law (you actually say "sinning," but since sin is breaking the law, I assume you'll agree that how I'm putting this is accurate) then God *stopped* offering him pardon!! So you would have it that when Lucifer was *not* breaking the law, God offered him pardon, but when he *was* breaking the law, then God didn't.

So when Lucifer didn't need pardon, God was willing to give it. But as soon as he needed it, God quit offering it. It's difficult for me to picture a more negative presentation of God's character than this.



Ok, so you think that God deliberately allowed the angels to be lost by not revealing them the cross when He could have done so and saved them? This sounds, well, blasphemous to me. (Personally, I think our conversation would be better off without these "blasphemous" references. What do you think?)



Capital punishment is not the penalty of sin. Where do you get this idea?



No, your view ignores this. That death is the wages of sin is *exactly* what I've been saying. If capital punishment were the wages of sin, then the wages of sin would be capital punishment, not death.



Ellen White said that death is the inevitable result of sin, not me. I simply quoted here.

Teresaq, can we take one verse at a time and still follow the biblical method of Bible study? "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." What advantage is there in disregarding this counsel especially in light of this delicate matter? Here are those passages again:


What do they feel? They feel indignant.

What do I hear them saying? That the wicked are worthy of double death, and that God is justified in meting out justice.

I have a question for you - What do you make of these passages?

First of all, point 2 is your assertion not mine. Secondly, A&E were able to repent before Jesus died, therefore, it is possible for sinners, like Lucifer, to repent given the promise of Jesus' death.

Consequently, my question stands - Do you think sinners can repent without the promise of Jesus' death?


What is the difference between men and angels? Why does this insight apply to men but not to angels? Why was there hope for men but not for angels?

1. You seem to think you understand what it was like to be Lucifer, to be a sinless angel, to be the highest ranking angel in heaven, to be admired and adored by other angels, to be included in nearly all of the secret counsels of God, to live before the entrance of sin and death, to know God so well there is nothing else He can do to recommend His love more fully. The truth is, Tom, you have no way of knowing what it was like to be Lucifer under those circumstances. It is ignorant at best, arrogant at worst, for anyone to presume to know what it was like to be Lucifer in heaven.

2. Again, pardon was offered under circumstances we have no way of comprehending. To assume pardon means the same thing under both circumstances (our and Lucifer's) is to assume we understand perfectly what it was like to be Lucifer in heaven. A humble recognition of our cerebral limitations should preclude such an audacious claim.

3. On the contrary, God offered to pardon Lucifer while he capable of receiving it, and He stopped offering it when he was incapable of receiving it. Such a thing is right and reasonable.


Yeah, I can try and leave out the word “blasphemous”. But the question remains unaddressed, namely, what did God do to woo and win back the angels that was more effective than Jesus dying for them? Elsewhere you argue nothing demonstrates the love of God better than Jesus' death. But here you are arguing Jesus’ death would have had no saving impact on the fallen angels, that it would have been useless in wooing or winning them back. How do you reconcile this contradiction?

Also, please address the other two points I raised (underlined above). Thank you.


The execution of penalty and punishment are aspects of law and justice. When God executes the death penalty, law and justice will be served and satisfied. When someone dies of natural causes, no one says, They were executed, or penalized, or punished. The fact such language is used regarding the execution of justice and judgment, as it pertains to the wicked at the end of time in the lake of fire, it is evidence they will not die of natural causes. Instead, the death penalty must be executed. God will execute judgment upon the wicked. He will penalize and punish them. Please listen carefully as Ellen explains it:


The quotes posted above make it clear that the law requires God to execute justice and judgment upon the wicked, to penalize and punish them in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. “By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” God requires it of Himself, which is also why law and justice require it of Him.


If capital punishment isn’t death, what, then, do you think it is?


Again, listen as Ellen explains it:


You say that death did not need to happen in consequence of sin, that Jesus did not have to die because law and justice require death for sin, that no one has to die in consequence of sin since repentance is sufficient to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. Arguing that one of the reasons why Jesus had to die is to motivate sinners to repent and obey is not the same thing as saying death is the inevitable result of sin. Thus, according to your view, death is not the inevitable result of sin since no one has to die as a result of sin.

But did you hear what Ellen said about it in the quote posted above? She says that no one can be pardoned without the death of Jesus, that if God pardoned anyone without also requiring the death of Jesus sin would be immortalized. Pardon is not a sufficient atonement. Law and justice do not require pardon; they require death for sin. "Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed." In spite of the plainly worded testimony posted above, you insist God could have simply pardoned the fallen angels without also requiring the death of Jesus without immortalizing sin. How do you reconcile this contradiction?


Tom, please acknowledge this point. I would hate for you to accuse me of it again in the future. Thank you.

I didn't even consider what it was like to be Lucifer. I have no idea why you're bringing this up. I pointed out that hating Christ is sin. Do you disagree with this?



Pardon is offered for breaking a law. This isn't a difficult concept to apprehend.



You say, "on the contrary," but what I asserted is exactly what you believe. It's not "on the contrary" at all.



This isn't turning anything around. These two statements are in harmony with one another.

If the reason why Christ had to die was to solve a legal problem so that God could be able to pardon, that issue would exist for angels as well as men, so Christ would have had to die for angels as well. Regarding the other point, that's expressed here:



This is in harmony with the idea that Christ's death was not for the purpose of solving a legal problem so God would be able to pardon.



God cannot pardon someone who does not wish to be pardoned. There's no creature merit involved.



The DA 761 quote addresses this.



I think the phrase "natural causes" is out of place here. "Natural causes" has to do with physical death, distinguishing it from death caused by the hand of another. In the latter sense, it fits, since the wicked die due to their own choice, as opposed to something God does to them:



I don't know how you account for this. As far as I remember, you've never commented on this point, although I've brought it up many, many times.



It's not the second death. It's punishment leveled against the state, in this world, which results in physical death.



No, I didn't say this.



Nor this.



Nor this. 0 for 3!



I didn't argue this. I simply quoted from the SOP where she says that death is the inevitable result of sin.



You've got an argument here, of which I can't follow the logic, and, in addition to this point, is predicated on a number of points not a one of which I've affirmed.



Are you saying that God could offer pardon without the death of Jesus, but not grant it?

From your response, it looks to me that you didn't understand my point. Let me try expressing it another way. Is God's offering pardon contingent upon the death of Christ?

Before I acknowledge you agree with my point, I want to make sure you really agree with it.

this:


not this:

No, it was your point. See post #106529.



I think DA 761 covers this:





These questions are answered in the quote.

Teresaq, it seems like you are implying the sentiment I expressed above is akin to "railing accusations". This accusation falls short of a fair assessment of my sentiment. You also seem to be suggesting that the passages I asked you to comment on (posted above) reflect sentiments which stand in stark contrast to the one I expressed. But I'm not sure how or why you would feel this way, if this is indeed how you see it. For example, during the outpouring of the seven last plagues, as the wicked are suffering intense pain and agony in consequence of their sins, the onlooking angels express their feelings about it. Listen:

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

Revelation
18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
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.
18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong [is] the Lord God who judgeth her.

The loved and loving apostle Paul expressed similar feelings. Listen:

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.

So again, please explain to me how these sentiments stand in stark contrast to the sentiment I expressed above? Why would you compare my sentiment to "railing accusations" in contrast to the sentiments expressed in the passages I posted above?

Here's what I wrote about it:


Soon after this post I clarified that the promise of Jesus' death is what enabled people for 4,000 years before Jesus died to repent and obey God. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that the promise of Jesus' death would have been useless in motivating Lucifer to repent and submit to God, therefore, God resorted to better and more effective means to plead with him to cease sinning and resume obeying. But you have expressed this opinion without supplying inspired statements to back it up. Please do so. Thank you.


Although this passage contains awesome and beautiful insights it does not address my question. Again, you believe the promise of Jesus' death would have been useless in motivating Lucifer to repent and submit to God, therefore, you believe God resorted to better and more effective means to plead with him to cease sinning and resume obeying. Based on this opinion you take liberty and license and jump to the amazing conclusion that Jesus did not, therefore, have to die to pay our sin debt of death. I do not understand the link, how you got from point A to point B.


Again, I don't see how the quote addresses these questions. It doesn't explain why the promise of Jesus' death was inferior to the means God used in an attempt to woo and win back the fallen angels. It doesn't explain why the promise of Jesus' death was the only way God could win back men but it would have been useless as a means for winning back angels. So, do you know of any inspired quote that explains your opinion regarding these questions and concerns?

You said Lucifer hated Jesus. That’s what I was addressing. The point is you cannot possibly know what it was like to be Lucifer in heaven. Not even Lucifer himself understood the nature of his new and strange thoughts and feelings. First he feels fine about God, then he doesn’t feel so fine, next he is singing the praises of God, then he is back to feeling rotten about God. We’re not talking about King David, who experienced a similar roller coaster ride; no, we’re talking about a sinless, majestic, and magnificent angel. He doubted the course of action he was pursuing from the beginning to the final appeal. At every step he was never more than mere inches away from abandoning his course altogether and picking up where he left off. Indeed, that Lucifer followed a downward path to destruction is an unexplainable mystery.


You are quick to argue, on the one hand, that the cases of men and angels are too different to compare, but then you are even quicker, on the other hand, to argue that they are similar enough to compare and to draw hardcore conclusions. Offering pardon to Lucifer in heaven and offering pardon to A&E in Eden is like comparing night and day, apples and oranges, ants and anteaters. God offered to pardon Lucifer before he was guilty of committing a crime worthy of death, whereas, He offered to pardon A&E after they were guilty of committing a crime worthy of death. The two cases are worlds apart (pardon the pun).


You are basing your assumption on the premise your opinion is the truth. But the facts do not warrant the conclusion. Even you agree with what I wrote above, namely, God offered to pardon Lucifer while he was capable of receiving it, and He stopped offering it when he was incapable of receiving it.


Again, you are trying to draw hardcore conclusions on the unfounded assumption the cases of men and angels are similar enough to compare. The quote you just posted draws the opposite conclusion. She says men might behold the character of God and be won back to Him, whereas, there was nothing God could do to win back the angels. Provision existed to save men but no such provision existed to save angels. There was hope for men should they sin but there was no hope for angels should they sin.

Do you see the dissimilarities? Again, the two cases are opposite in so many fundamental ways that it is impossible to compare them and draw any meaningful conclusions. This is not to say nothing can be gained by contrasting the cases of men and angles; indeed, this is precisely what Ellen did in the quote you posted. However, she clearly did not come to the conclusions you have, namely, that God would not have also required the death of Jesus to pardon angels. Nor did she conclude, as you have, that the death of Jesus was not needed for God to earn the legal right to pardon and save men. Listen as she explains it elsewhere:

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 . . . {1SM 309.4} 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}

Jesus was earning the right to become the advocate of men in the Father's presence. {DA 744.3} He is invested with the right to give immortality. {DA 786.4} He died to secure the right to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. {FLB 179.5} Our Creator justly claims the right to do as He chooses with the creatures of His hand. {5T 314.4}

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}


Neither can God pardon a sinner whom the law condemns to death without providing the ransom price, namely, the substitutionary death of Jesus. Your view, however, makes pardon and salvation dependent on what sinners do rather than on what Jesus did. You seem to think genuine repentance is sufficient to atone for past sins, to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. But you seem to be overlooking the fact law and justice do not require repentance for sin. The truth is they require death for sin. Listen:

In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. {Con 21.3} Christ made a full atonement, giving His life as a ransom for us. {LHU 345.2} With His own blood He has paid their ransom. . . [The Father] is satisfied with the atonement made. {8T 177.2}

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

The Son of God pities fallen man. He knows that the law of his Father is as unchanging as himself. He can only see one way of escape for the transgressor. He offers himself to his Father as a sacrifice for man, to take their guilt and punishment upon himself, and redeem them from death by dying in their place, and thus pay the ransom. The Father consents to give his dearly beloved Son to save the fallen race; and through his merits and intercession promises to receive man again into his favor, and to restore holiness to as many as should be willing to accept the atonement thus mercifully offered, and obey his law. For the sake of his dear Son the Father forbears a while the execution of death, and to Christ he commits the fallen race. {3SG 46.3}


It doesn’t even come close to explaining your view. It simply says there was nothing God could do to win back Lucifer never mind the fact it says nothing about God using means more effective than Jesus dying. Where in the Bible or the SOP does it say God did not use Jesus’ death as a means to motivate the fallen angels to leave off sinning and to resume obeying Him because it would have been ineffective and meaningless to do so?


Did you accidentally ignore all those quotes I posted? Or, was there some other reason you didn’t address them? It is obvious from the inspired description that the wicked do not die at the end of time by physically unplugging themselves from the source of life. I have repeatedly posted this description and you have consistently posted passages like the one you just posted above as if they explain the passages I posted. But they don’t. She never intended for them to explain away the obvious meaning of her carefully constructed description of the final demise of the wicked.

By the way, I have explained the quote you posted above. But for the sake of convenience I’ll restate my position here (I know how burdensome it can be to search for it elsewhere; perhaps you can extend the same courtesy in the future should I ask you to state a position you believe you have already stated; you are, after all, here to primarily practice presenting your views clearly; as they say, practice makes perfect). Okay, here’s the context of the quote in question with pertinent points underlined:


First, she says the wicked “will be cut off.” Then she says God “will destroy” them. Next, in reference to God exercising His power to cut them off and destroy them, she says, “This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.” In other words, God doesn’t randomly decide to resurrect them and then cut them off and destroy them without just cause. His vengeance and retributive judgments are totally justified. They are reaping what they have sown.

Next, she goes on to say, “The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.” Again, it is the radiant brightness of His glorious firelight that consumes them. Elsewhere she adds that fire from above and fire from below unite with the firelight of God’s radiant brightness to cause the wicked to suffer and die. Finally, she concludes by saying, “Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love”.


So you say. But do you any inspired proof to back it up? I have posted many, many inspired passages which clearly say it is God, not sin or sinners, who will execute justice and judgment upon sinners.


Seems to me that following your view to its logical conclusion contradicts what Ellen said about the relationship between sin and death and justice and judgment. The points and quotes I posted above, which you did not address, clearly demonstrate that you have misunderstood and misapplied the quote you posted. Please take the time to address the comments and quotes I posted. Thank you.


No. But thank you for asking. I am saying that God had a legal right to offer penitent sinners pardon, before Jesus died on the cross in 31 AD, based on the fact Jesus is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. Like a promissory note, like credit, God could offer pardon before Jesus died because God’s word is as good as money in the bank. Also, yes, God can offer pardon without actually granting it. Granting pardon is conditional on two important conditions: 1) Jesus must die in consequence of sin, and 2) sinners must repent and obey God.


Actually, I was asking you to acknowledge my point. At any rate, my response above should make it clear what I believe about it. If not, I’ll make it clear here. Yes! God would never offer something He could never give. Nevertheless, God’s word is as good as gold, therefore, He could offer to pardon sinners before Jesus died on the cross, which, of course, means Jesus’ death was necessary for God to earn the legal right to actually grant sinners pardon and salvation. No death, no pardon. No pardon, no salvation. Cut and dried. Plain and simple.

I've quoted DA 762 at least a dozen times. For your convenience, here it is again:



Given than on virtually every post I've quoted this, I find it odd that you would assert that I haven't supplied any inspired comments to back up my thoughts. Also, the way you expressed my thoughts was incorrect (from "You, on the other hand" on). I'm not wishing to say anything different than what's quoted here.

The only additional comment I recall making in regards to this, not in the EGW quote, is that God loves angels as much as men, so surely if it would have been possible to save Lucifer by Christ's death, God would have done so. This statement I made based on God's character, that God is love, and loves angels as well as men.



No, I didn't say this.



No, MM. This is not the argument I've made. The argument I've made is the following:

1.You believe that Christ had to die in order for God to be able to offer and grant pardon for sinners because of the law demands death for sin.
2.If this belief were true, this would apply as much to Lucifer's situation as to man's.
3.God was not constrained in pardoning Lucifer as you suggest He should have been.
4.Therefore Christ's death was necessary for man for some other reason than what you have been suggesting.

This is the argument. It's not based on why Christ did not have to die for Lucifer. This question came up afterwards. I've never presented the argument in a way which is dependent upon why Christ's death was not necessary in order for God to be able to pardon him. I brought up DA 761, 762 in answer to your question as to why Christ's death was necessary for man and not for Lucifer. Again, this paragraph is not necessary for the argument I presented; it's simply an answer to a follow-up question you had in regards to the argument.



This hasn't been asserted.



The quote does deal with this question.



The first one is not an issue I've raised. The second one is dealt with in the quote. Specifically the quote explains why there was nothing more God could do for Satan, but there was something God could do for man (namely, reveal the height and depth and breadth of His love by the cross, thus dispelling Satan's lies in regards to His character).

You are implying that since Jesus did not die to woo and win back the fallen angels that it means whatever ways God did use were superior to Jesus dying. By the way, DA 762 quote you posted does not explain what God did in His failed attempt to woo and win them back.

She simply says, "To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love." Where in the time line of Lucifer's life in heaven do you think this insight applies - before or after he sinned? If you answer, before, then what did God do to reveal His love more fully after he sinned? If you answer, after, then is it possible God could have prevented rebellion by revealing His love more fully prior to Lucifer's rebellion? IOW, why did God wait until afterward to reveal His love fully enough to prevent rebellion?

"There was no more that God could do to save him." What did God do to save him that He didn't do before Lucifer began to sin and rebel? And, why didn't He do it prior to the rebellion? Would it not have prevented the rebellion?

You said Lucifer hated Jesus. That’s what I was addressing. The point is you cannot possibly know what it was like to be Lucifer in heaven. Not even Lucifer himself understood the nature of his new and strange thoughts and feelings. First he feels fine about God, then he doesn’t feel so fine, next he is singing the praises of God, then he is back to feeling rotten about God. We’re not talking about King David, who experienced a similar roller coaster ride; no, we’re talking about a sinless, majestic, and magnificent angel. He doubted the course of action he was pursuing from the beginning to the final appeal. At every step he was never more than mere inches away from abandoning his course altogether and picking up where he left off. Indeed, that Lucifer followed a downward path to destruction is an unexplainable mystery.


You are quick to argue, on the one hand, that the cases of men and angels are too different to compare, but then you are even quicker, on the other hand, to argue that they are similar enough to compare and to draw hardcore conclusions. Offering pardon to Lucifer in heaven and offering pardon to A&E in Eden is like comparing night and day, apples and oranges, ants and anteaters. God offered to pardon Lucifer before he was guilty of committing a crime worthy of death, whereas, He offered to pardon A&E after they were guilty of committing a crime worthy of death. The two cases are worlds apart (pardon the pun).


You are basing your assumption on the premise your opinion is the truth. But the facts do not warrant the conclusion. Even you agree with what I wrote above, namely, God offered to pardon Lucifer while he was capable of receiving it, and He stopped offering it when he was incapable of receiving it.


Again, you are trying to draw hardcore conclusions on the unfounded assumption the cases of men and angels are similar enough to compare. The quote you just posted draws the opposite conclusion. She says men might behold the character of God and be won back to Him, whereas, there was nothing God could do to win back the angels. Provision existed to save men but no such provision existed to save angels. There was hope for men should they sin but there was no hope for angels should they sin.

Do you see the dissimilarities? Again, the two cases are opposite in so many fundamental ways that it is impossible to compare them and draw any meaningful conclusions. This is not to say nothing can be gained by contrasting the cases of men and angles; indeed, this is precisely what Ellen did in the quote you posted. However, she clearly did not come to the conclusions you have, namely, that God would not have also required the death of Jesus to pardon angels. Nor did she conclude, as you have, that the death of Jesus was not needed for God to earn the legal right to pardon and save men. Listen as she explains it elsewhere:

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 . . . {1SM 309.4} 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}

Jesus was earning the right to become the advocate of men in the Father's presence. {DA 744.3} He is invested with the right to give immortality. {DA 786.4} He died to secure the right to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. {FLB 179.5} Our Creator justly claims the right to do as He chooses with the creatures of His hand. {5T 314.4}

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}


Neither can God pardon a sinner whom the law condemns to death without providing the ransom price, namely, the substitutionary death of Jesus. Your view, however, makes pardon and salvation dependent on what sinners do rather than on what Jesus did. You seem to think genuine repentance is sufficient to atone for past sins, to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. But you seem to be overlooking the fact law and justice do not require repentance for sin. The truth is they require death for sin. Listen:

In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. {Con 21.3} Christ made a full atonement, giving His life as a ransom for us. {LHU 345.2} With His own blood He has paid their ransom. . . [The Father] is satisfied with the atonement made. {8T 177.2}

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

The Son of God pities fallen man. He knows that the law of his Father is as unchanging as himself. He can only see one way of escape for the transgressor. He offers himself to his Father as a sacrifice for man, to take their guilt and punishment upon himself, and redeem them from death by dying in their place, and thus pay the ransom. The Father consents to give his dearly beloved Son to save the fallen race; and through his merits and intercession promises to receive man again into his favor, and to restore holiness to as many as should be willing to accept the atonement thus mercifully offered, and obey his law. For the sake of his dear Son the Father forbears a while the execution of death, and to Christ he commits the fallen race. {3SG 46.3}


It doesn’t even come close to explaining your view. It simply says there was nothing God could do to win back Lucifer never mind the fact it says nothing about God using means more effective than Jesus dying. Where in the Bible or the SOP does it say God did not use Jesus’ death as a means to motivate the fallen angels to leave off sinning and to resume obeying Him because it would have been ineffective and meaningless to do so?


Did you accidentally ignore all those quotes I posted? Or, was there some other reason you didn’t address them? It is obvious from the inspired description that the wicked do not die at the end of time by physically unplugging themselves from the source of life. I have repeatedly posted this description and you have consistently posted passages like the one you just posted above as if they explain the passages I posted. But they don’t. She never intended for them to explain away the obvious meaning of her carefully constructed description of the final demise of the wicked.

By the way, I have explained the quote you posted above. But for the sake of convenience I’ll restate my position here (I know how burdensome it can be to search for it elsewhere; perhaps you can extend the same courtesy in the future should I ask you to state a position you believe you have already stated; you are, after all, here to primarily practice presenting your views clearly; as they say, practice makes perfect). Okay, here’s the context of the quote in question with pertinent points underlined:


First, she says the wicked “will be cut off.” Then she says God “will destroy” them. Next, in reference to God exercising His power to cut them off and destroy them, she says, “This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.” In other words, God doesn’t randomly decide to resurrect them and then cut them off and destroy them without just cause. His vengeance and retributive judgments are totally justified. They are reaping what they have sown.

Next, she goes on to say, “The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.” Again, it is the radiant brightness of His glorious firelight that consumes them. Elsewhere she adds that fire from above and fire from below unite with the firelight of God’s radiant brightness to cause the wicked to suffer and die. Finally, she concludes by saying, “Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love”.


So you say. But do you any inspired proof to back it up? I have posted many, many inspired passages which clearly say it is God, not sin or sinners, who will execute justice and judgment upon sinners.


Seems to me that following your view to its logical conclusion contradicts what Ellen said about the relationship between sin and death and justice and judgment. The points and quotes I posted above, which you did not address, clearly demonstrate that you have misunderstood and misapplied the quote you posted. Please take the time to address the comments and quotes I posted. Thank you.


No. But thank you for asking. I am saying that God had a legal right to offer penitent sinners pardon, before Jesus died on the cross in 31 AD, based on the fact Jesus is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. Like a promissory note, like credit, God could offer pardon before Jesus died because God’s word is as good as money in the bank. Also, yes, God can offer pardon without actually granting it. Granting pardon is conditional on two important conditions: 1) Jesus must die in consequence of sin, and 2) sinners must repent and obey God.


Actually, I was asking you to acknowledge my point. At any rate, my response above should make it clear what I believe about it. If not, I’ll make it clear here. Yes! God would never offer something He could never give. Nevertheless, God’s word is as good as gold, therefore, He could offer to pardon sinners before Jesus died on the cross, which, of course, means Jesus’ death was necessary for God to earn the legal right to actually grant sinners pardon and salvation. No death, no pardon. No pardon, no salvation. Cut and dried. Plain and simple.

You mean Ellen White is implying this, don't you? Assuming she is implying this, what's your point?



Why is this important?



She also says that he knew God's character and goodness.



The context answers this question: "Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him."



Why do you think God did something to more fully reveal His love? Why do you think this would be helpful? Suppose Lucifer's problem was not understanding God's love. What then?



He revealed His love to the creatures who needed it.





He answered the questions Lucifer had which he didn't have before.



Because Lucifer hadn't raised his questions yet.



Of course not. The rebellion did not occur because God failed to reveal something.

This isn't true. God offered both Lucifer and man pardon after breaking the law. Clearly Lucifer's sins were worse than man's. Lucifer harbored hatred in his heart towards Christ. Man didn't to that. Man was deceived. Lucifer plunged ahead, knowing what he was doing, and God *still* offered him pardon, even after that. Even after Lucifer began his false claims against God, it still wasn't too late for him to be pardoned.



No, not based on my opinion. I'm basing what I said on what you wrote.



Yes they do. Here is what you wrote:



You are asserting that God did offered Lucifer pardon when he didn't need it (i.e., when he wasn't breaking the law), but as soon as he needed the pardon (i.e. when he was guilty of breaking the law) God stopped. At the very point Lucifer started to need pardon, God stopped offering him pardon. This seems like a very cruel idea, as if God were toying with Lucifer.

Regarding there being similarities and differences regarding Lucifer and man, yes, that's true. The similarities are both Lucifer and man broke the law, and God offered pardon for both. A difference is that Lucifer fully understood God's character and goodness, while man did not, having been deceived. For man there was hope in a revelation of God's character and love. So that's what God did; He gave man what he needed, a revelation of His character and love.

Another difference is that not once in the dozens of pages where the fall of Lucifer is discussed is the death of Christ ever mentioned, even in the context of God's offering him pardon. On the other hand, whenever man's fall is discussed, and man's pardon, Christ's death is always mentioned.

Regarding your idea that the two cases are so different that they cannot be discussed, it doesn't matter that the cases are different to establish my point. My point is that if it were necessary for Christ to have died in order for God to be able to offer (and grant) pardon, then Christ's death would have had to have been involved in the pardon of Lucifer. The cases don't have to be similar to make this point. All that's necessary to establish is that God offered Lucifer pardon.



He could Lucifer.



This is rather amusing. Before you accused me that my view did *not* depend upon what sinners did, but only on what Christ did. Now you're asserting the opposite!

The truth is that pardon and salvation depend upon both what Jesus (and God and the Holy Spirit) do and on what man does. Man must repent, but man would be unable to do so apart from the grace of God, the sacrifice of Christ, and the wooing of the Holy Spirit.



We're looking at these concepts completely differently. You see the law and justice as retributive rather than restorative. Here's a chart that lists some of the differences:

Retributive:

Sin is a violation of the rules.
The law is the victim.
The parties involved are the law and the offender.
A debt is owed to the law in the abstract.
The debt is paid by punishment.

Restorative:

Sin harms people and relationships.
The victim is a being.
The parties are victim/offender.
A debt owed to the victim.
The debt paid by "making right"

(http://www.topekacpj.org/vomp/rest_vs_retr.htm)


You and I are speaking a different language. I agree that a debt must be paid, and that justice must be satisfied, and that the law demands death, but these things all mean something different to me than they do for you.

I believe that when man sinned because he distrusted God, having been deceived about God's character. This disobedience led to further distrust of God, and more darkness in regards to His character, and more disobedience, a vicious cycle. To fix the cycle, it was necessary to halt the problem at the root; man's misunderstanding of God's character. As the SOP put it, Jesus Christ's mission was the "revelation of God" to "set man right." This is how the debt is paid in restorative justice.



I've never asserted this, MM. You take what I write, and then twist it into something I've never said, and then ask me to prove this twisted thing. Over and over you do this. What I've asked you to do is to quote what I've actually said, and we can discuss that.

All I did here was quote DA 761,762. I haven't gone beyond what she wrote there. Again, the only thing I added was that God loves angels as He loves men, and would have done anything possible to save them. Do you disagree with this? Do you disagree with DA 761,762? I really don't understand what you're taking issue with, as I've not said anything beyond this.



But this isn't what she argues. She doesn't argue that "His vengeance and retributive judgments are totally justified." If she did argue this, I would agree that "arbitrary" would mean "capricious." But she doesn't. Instead she contrasts "arbitrary act of God" with "God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life." There's not a word in what she says about God's "vengeance" and "retributive judgments" being justified. Indeed, the concept you are suggesting is the exact thing she is arguing against. This is why she emphasized so often that what happened is not something God does to the wicked but a choice they themselves have made.



No, she doesn't say this next. Next she says the part that you skipped with your underlining:



This is the whole point of what she was saying! You skipped over that which was the crux of the matter!



You don't know what capital punishment is?



If I said something using the word "apple," and explained what an apple was, would you demand an inspired statement to back up what the meaning of "apple" is?



The judgment is death, which is the "inevitable result of sin." In the DA passage we have been discussing, it says:



Had God *left* Satan to reap what he had sown, he would have died. Why? Because that's "the inevitable result of sin." Please not it says "left." "Left" means to abandon, to go away from; it's the exact opposite of the concept you are suggesting, which would have God directing action against the sinner as opposed to leaving him to what he had chosen, the emphasis of DA 764.

Regarding the quote about Adam, you've brought this up many times, and I've addressed it many times, usually by quoting this:



This is what I understand EGW to be saying. If we perceive justice to be restorative rather than retributive, what Fifield wrote follows.



Ok, then asserting that God could offer Lucifer pardon apart from Christ's death is tantamount to asserting that God could grant Lucifer pardon apart from Christ's death.

thoughts occured to lucifer "out of the blue" so-to-speak. a completely, new, unknown happening.

adam and eve were fully instructed about satan
given complete instructions about the tree
warned of the consequences

lucifer was appealed to by both angels and Jesus over and over again.
he yo-yoed for a while.
the angels had to be allowed to make their choice.
in the end pride would not let him give in.

eve tricked and deceived, adam willingly ate for sake of eve.

when satan couldnt get back in heaven, deliberated on how to "steal" adam and eve.

When Adam and Eve realized how exalted and sacred was the law of God, the transgression of which made so costly a sacrifice necessary to save them and their posterity from utter ruin, they plead to die themselves, or to let them and their posterity endure the penalty of their transgression, rather than that the beloved Son of God should make this great sacrifice. The anguish of Adam was increased. He saw that his sins were of so great magnitude as to involve fearful consequences. And must it be that Heaven's honored Commander, who had walked with him, and talked with him, while in his holy innocence, whom angels honored and worshiped, must be brought down from his exalted position to die because of his transgression. ...{1SP 50.2}

satan - 0 repentence

adam and eve - full repentence

did i miss anything?