|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,630
Members1,323
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die?
#15213
08/05/05 09:09 PM
08/05/05 09:09 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
MM: You in no way addressed my post. You just rewrote what you had before. For your convenience, I will repost the argument: Let's take a closer look at the description from GC88: quote:
:Leaving his place in the immediate presence of God, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. Working with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealing his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God, he endeavored to excite dissatisfaction concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that they imposed an unnecessary restraint. Since their natures were holy, he urged that the angels should obey the dictates of their own will. He sought to create sympathy for himself, by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ. He claimed that in aspiring to greater power and honor he was not aiming at self-exaltation, but was seeking to secure liberty for all the inhabitants of Heaven, that by this means they might attain to a higher state of existence. {GC88 495.2}
Look at what Satan did:
1)He diffused a spirit of discontent among the angels.
2)He concealed his real purpose under a false guise.
3)He sought to create sympathy for himself.
4)He lied as to his real purpose (claiming it was not for self-exaltation).
So here we see that not only was Satan sinning, but he was knowingly sinning. If he didn't know what he were doing, he wouldn't have concealed his real purpose under a false guise. He would have openly voiced his discontent. His whole purpose was self-exaltation, and he resorted to lying, misrepresentations, and concealing his purposes.
Just after this we read:
quote:
:He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had forsaken his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been re-instated in his office.
So even though Lucifer had been sinning, he had not committed the unpardonable sin. He had not fully cast off his allegiance to God. Until this point, he could have returned, under the condition of repentance and submission. It was only after he crossed the point of no return that he could go back.
-------------------------------------------------
You will note that I included specific reasons for seeing that Satan had sinned. He had not committed the unpardonable sin, for he could have been pardoned had he repented. Again and again he was offered pardon.
Regarding your comments on "pardon" and "repentance" I assume you were being serious, they missed the mark on several counts. Here was my challenge:
quote:
God offered "again and again" to "pardon" Satan. Now "pardon" means "forgiveness" or "a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense." I challenge you to find ONE TIME in all the 100,000+ pages of the Spirit of Prophesy where she uses the word "pardon" in the context of repentance where it is not referring to sin.
First of all, your comment has to do with Bible passages, not something from the Spirit of Prophesy. Secondly the word "repent" in Gen. 6 was not talking about God's repenting for sin, but His sorrow for having created man. When God gave Satan the ability to return to his position, that *was* in response for the commission of sin. Finally the word "pardon" in the example you gave was also not in the context of the forgiveness of sin, but rather in the context of "pardon me."
I asked for one example in the writings of the Spirit of Prophesy where the word "pardon" was used in the context of "repentance" where it's not talking about repentance for sin.
Everybody knows what pardon and repentance are about. Ask anybody what the following statement means: "God will pardon you on the condition of repentance" and they will tell you. There's no ambiguity or confusion here.
God offered Satan pardon on the condition of repentance time and time again. Clearly Satan had sinned (otherwise pardon wouldn't have been necessary) and Satan knew it (otherwise repentance would have been pointless).
|
|
|
Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die?
#15214
08/05/05 09:33 PM
08/05/05 09:33 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old MM: Are you going to respond to this insight posted above? quote:
This would have been immediately evident to Adam and Eve. Thus, it could have been revolved before they ever had children. Obviously, more was needed to pardon them, namely, the death penalty must be executed. It was needful to satisfy the demands of Justice (God).
Tom: I think I responded to your questions/comments except for this one. I think you meant "below" instead of "above" from this, so I'll proceed on this assumption.
What are the demands of justice?
quote:
8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)
Why was death necessary for man, but not for Satan? I believe the answer is found in this quote:
quote:
But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love.
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. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. {DA 761.5}
Nothing more could be done to help Satan, but God could do something to help man.
I think John hit the nail on the head in his earlier comments regarding Christ briding the gulf sin had made. The point is that the gulf sin creates is in our minds, which is where sin resides. There was no problem between us and God, except in our minds. Our minds are what need to be fixed, and the can only be fixed if we have an accurate picture of God's character. Jesus came to reveal God's character to us; this was the whole purpose of His mission. The reason He did this was to set us right with God:
quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Setting us right with God fixes all our problems. Nothing more for us than this needs to be done. The only way to do this was for God to reveal His character to us, which is just what He did, at infiniate cost.
|
|
|
Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die?
#15215
08/06/05 02:17 AM
08/06/05 02:17 AM
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Back to your original question, regarding what causes unbelief, I would say originally, unbelief arose out of Eve's choice to believe the serpent's lies. Then sin itself fostered a false image of God's character, which led the first pair to hide from God, being afraid of Him and ashamed. So the root problem of unbelief is an incorrect view of God's character. This false view is corrected when we see the truth about God, as revealed in His Son.
Let's take a closer look at the Biblical account given of the "Fall of Man".
God places the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil"(TKGOE) in the Garden of Eden. He commands man to not eat of the fruit of this tree, for if he does, he will surely die.
Now let's pretend for a moment that we are Adam and we have just heard this serious warning.
What thoughts would pass through your mind?
My first thought would be ....."What is death?"
At that point in time, none of God's creation had ever experienced death, so how would man be able to comprehend what it is?
The only way that any "created being" could understand what "death" is is for a "created being" to experience "death".
So now we have a quandary.....God warns that death will be the consequence of disobedience and yet none of his creation could comprehend how severe this consequence would be.
Example: Let's say that I tell my little four-year-old daughter to not put her hand on the stove or else she will get burned. She has never experienced a burn before, nor has she witnessed anyone else being burned. She is completely incapable of comprehending what it means to be burned.
This is the way that it was with Adam and Eve. The only way that they could have fully comprehended "death" would have been for one or both of them to experience it or to witness another "created being" experiencing "death".
So here we have the first tangible ingredient that helped lead first Eve and then Adam into unbelief...... There was no "proof/evidence" available to them to support God's claim that they would die if they disobeyed. They could only take God at His Word, that the consequence for disobedience is severe.
Now we come to the temptation......
The Bible states that the Serpent "was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made"
(Now we are not told what this "subtilness" that the serpent possessed entailed, but we should be able to assume that this animal was not as intelligent as man, because man was created in the "image of God" while the other creatures were not.)
This serpent enters into a conversation with Eve.
(This must have been something of a shock to Eve to discover that a serpent could reason and talk as a human being.)
As Eve and the serpent converse, the serpent asks a "leading question"......."Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"
Eve responds that God has given them permission to eat of the fruit of all the trees in the Garden, except for one, the tree that is in the "middle of the garden"(TKGOE). She states that if they eat of the fruit, or even touch it, they will surely die.
(It may be of interest to note that the Biblical record shows that the command to not eat of the TKGOE was given only to Adam prior to the creation of Eve. Therefore it may be concluded that Eve had heard of this warning indirectly thru Adam. Also, it is interesting to note that Eve states that they are not to touch the TKGOE, which is not included in the original warning given by God.)
Now we come to a very important point......
The serpent responds to Eve by stating; "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
Now here are some questions.....
Was this statement made by the serpent True or False?
Did Eve then Adam suffer "death" as a direct result of their eating of the fruit of the TKGOE?
Also.......
After eating the fruit, did they become "like God, knowing good from evil"? See Genesis 3:22
The Biblical record goes on to state that Eve was somehow able to determine that the fruit was good for food, or that it wasn't poisonous.
Here is the real kicker!
The temptation had an added attractiveness in that the serpent claimed that by eating of the fruit, Eve would become "like God".
Now let's look at this a little closer to see if there is any evidence that Eve and Adam could see that would lead them to believe that what the serpent said was true?
How about a talking serpent? (That would be pretty convincing evidence to me.)
So now we have several possible ingredients that would lead man to "unbelief".
Lack of evidence that there is really a "Death" that can be experienced by a "created being" and the observance of a "created being" becoming greater than its original creation.
Yes, God's character may have been brought into question, but that was secondary in nature. It was not the primary element involved in the Great Controversy that was developing.
Do you follow me thus far?
|
|
|
Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die?
#15216
08/06/05 03:36 AM
08/06/05 03:36 AM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
quote:
PP 39, 40
In great mercy, according to His divine character, God bore long with Lucifer. The spirit of discontent and disaffection had never before been known in heaven. It was a new element, strange, mysterious, unaccountable. Lucifer himself had not at first been acquainted with the real nature of his feelings; for a time he had feared to express the workings and imaginings of his mind; yet he did not dismiss them. He did not see whither he was drifting. But such efforts as infinite love and wisdom only could devise, were made to convince him of his error. His disaffection was proved to be without cause, and he was made to see what would be the result of persisting in revolt.
Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong. He saw that "the Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works" (Psalm 145:17); that the divine statutes are just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels. He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had left his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office.
The time had come for a final decision; he must fully yield to the divine sovereignty or place himself in open rebellion. He nearly reached the decision to return, but pride forbade him. It was too great a sacrifice for one who had been so highly honored to confess that he had been in error, that his imaginings were false, and to yield to the authority which he had been working to prove unjust. {PP 39.1}
A compassionate Creator, in yearning pity for Lucifer and his followers, was seeking to draw them back from the abyss of ruin into which they were about to plunge. But His mercy was misinterpreted. Lucifer pointed to the long-suffering of God as an evidence of his own superiority, an indication that the King of the universe would yet accede to his terms. If the angels would stand firmly with him, he declared, they could yet gain all that they desired. He persistently defended his own course, and fully committed himself to the great controversy against his Maker.
Thus it was that Lucifer, "the light bearer," the sharer of God's glory, the attendant of His throne, by transgression became Satan, "the adversary" of God and holy beings and the destroyer of those whom Heaven had committed to his guidance and guardianship. {PP 39.2}
Tom, where in this quote does Sister White say Satan "sinned" before God offered to restore him?
You are arguing that it is obvious Satan sinned because God offered to pardon him, and I am arguing that it is obvious he hadn't sinned because God was willing to restore him without an atoning sacrifice. "... without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb 9:22)
|
|
|
Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die?
#15217
08/07/05 08:47 PM
08/07/05 08:47 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
MM: Tom, where in this quote does Sister White say Satan "sinned" before God offered to restore him? You are arguing that it is obvious Satan sinned because God offered to pardon him, and I am arguing that it is obvious he hadn't sinned because God was willing to restore him without an atoning sacrifice. "... without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb 9:22) Tom: I didn't say it said in the quote you cited that Satan had sinned. I said we could infer that Satan sinned from this quote: quote:
Leaving his place in the immediate presence of God, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. Working with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealing his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God, he endeavored to excite dissatisfaction concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that they imposed an unnecessary restraint. Since their natures were holy, he urged that the angels should obey the dictates of their own will. He sought to create sympathy for himself, by representing that God had dealt unjustly with him in bestowing supreme honor upon Christ. He claimed that in aspiring to greater power and honor he was not aiming at self-exaltation, but was seeking to secure liberty for all the inhabitants of Heaven, that by this means they might attain to a higher state of existence. {GC88 495.2}
Consider what Satan did:
1)He diffused a spirit of discontent among the angels.
2)He concealed his real purpose under a false guise.
3)He sought to create sympathy for himself.
4)He lied as to his real purpose (claiming it was not for self-exaltation).
So here we see that not only was Satan sinning, but he was knowingly sinning. If he didn't know what he were doing, he wouldn't have concealed his real purpose under a false guise. He would have openly voiced his discontent. His whole purpose was self-exaltation, and he resorted to lying, misrepresentations, and concealing his purposes.
God offered "again and again" to "pardon" Satan.
"Pardon" means "forgiveness" or "a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense."
I issued the following challenge:
quote:
I challenge you to find ONE TIME in all the 100,000+ pages of the Spirit of Prophesy where she uses the word "pardon" in the context of repentance where it is not referring to sin.
From your lack of response, I assume you concede that pardon, in the context of forgiveness, does imply that sin had been committed.
Satan had repeatedly and knowingly sinned, but refused the offered pardon, again and again. This shows that sin can be pardoned, in some cases, without the shedding of blood. Yet for man, the pardon of sin did require the shedding of blood. Why?
What could God forgive Satan without any blood being involved, but not forgive man? Do you think it is because of some difference in God? or some difference in those who had sinned (Satan/man)? Which makes more sense?
|
|
|
Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die?
#15218
08/07/05 08:56 PM
08/07/05 08:56 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Bob, I followed most of what you wrote, except for the idea that the serpent was less intelligent than man. The animal could not have talked in and of itself, so it must have been being used by some other being (e.g. Satan), which could just as well have been more intelligent than man.
Also, I think the primary issue which led to Eve's sin was a lack of trust in God. Had she trusted God, when the serpent suggested that God was withholding something from her which would be good for her, she would have responded something like "No, God is not like that. He would not withhold something from me which is good for me." and refused to eat. It was because Eve doubted God that she took the forbidden fruit, and the impact of the action (and Adam's) is seen in their running from God and hiding when He approached them. Their doubt of God grew, and becamse ingrained in our psyche.
The big problem of sin is in our mind. We do not understand the truth about God. Christ came that we might see what God is really like, so our sin-damaged minds could be healed. Christ came to effect a reconciliation between God and man.
|
|
|
Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die?
#15219
08/07/05 10:42 PM
08/07/05 10:42 PM
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Ewall:
Bob, I followed most of what you wrote, except for the idea that the serpent was less intelligent than man. The animal could not have talked in and of itself, so it must have been being used by some other being (e.g. Satan), which could just as well have been more intelligent than man..........Also, I think the primary issue which led to Eve's sin was a lack of trust in God.
I would agree that the serpent was incapable of speaking and that it was probably a medium for Satan.
I agree that she did not trust God. The very important point that I am attempting to present is "why?" she did not trust Him. The evidence that the serpent was presenting to her was more convincing than the evidence that God had presented to her.
Point #1:
God said, "If you eat the fruit you will die."
The serpent said, "If you eat the fruit, you will NOT die."
Eve ate the fruit and she did NOT die.
It would appear that the evidence would validate what the serpent said.
Point #2:
The serpent said, "If you eat this fruit, you will become like God, knowing good and evil."
After Eve and Adam had eaten the fruit, God admitted that they had become "like us, knowing good from evil."
Yes, Eve doubted/did not trust God.
Why....Because there was insufficient evidence available to her so that she could comprehend the truth that He was telling her.
Point #3:
Satan was able to tempt Eve with the exact temptation that he had yielded to. He believed that it was possible to ascend to a level of "Godliness" and he convinced her that she, too, could ascend to that level.
|
|
|
Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die?
#15220
08/07/05 11:16 PM
08/07/05 11:16 PM
|
OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tom, I didn't say you said my quote said Satan had sinned. I asked you if it did? You have yet to answer my question. You seem to believe your quote says Satan sinned. But it doesn't. My quote is more complete than yours. It stands to reason, therefore, that we should consider the one that provides the greatest amount of detail. Besides, our quotes do not contradict one another.
You also seem convinced that God cannot offer pardon unless someone has sinned. You agree that Eve did not sin until she ate the forbidden fruit, even though she was guilty of doubting God's word way before she sinned, but you seem eager to believe Lucifer was guilty of sin before he committed himself to open rebellion.
The Bible clearly says that there is no remission for sins without the shedding of blood, and yet you seem convinced that it is possible for God to pardon sin without blood. I'm not as willing to disregard the word of God in order to believe Satan sinned and that God was willing to restore him without blood. Nor am I willing to base an entire theology as to why Jesus had to die on such a tenuous premise.
|
|
|
Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die?
#15221
08/08/05 03:41 AM
08/08/05 03:41 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
MM: Tom, I didn't say you said my quote said Satan had sinned. I asked you if it did? You have yet to answer my question.
Tom: You want to know if the quote you cited said that Satan sinned? What difference would it make. I found clear evidence in another place that he did. I'm sure there are many places where Sister White wrote things about Satan without stating that he sinned. She certainly didn't say he didn't sin there, and since we can see that he did sin from the other quote, that should be enough.
MM: You seem to believe your quote says Satan sinned. But it doesn't.
Tom: Sure it does. It even lists the sins, which I pointed out to you. Unless you think misrepresenting God's character, acting secretly and deviously to exalt yourself by telling lies is not sinning. Plus she points out that God offered to pardon him if he repented, which anyone ought to be able to recognize as evidence of sin. I can only think of one reason why a person wouldn't see this.
MM: My quote is more complete than yours. It stands to reason, therefore, that we should consider the one that provides the greatest amount of detail. Besides, our quotes do not contradict one another.
Tom: This is silly reasoning. The quotes cover different things. Just like in the Gospels, if one of the Gospels covers an event in more detail than another, yet the other presents some item of detail which the one with the greater detail didn't cover, we don't just throw it out, do we, and say it never happened?
MM: You also seem convinced that God cannot offer pardon unless someone has sinned.
Tom: God offered pardon on the condition of repentance. Both of these facts indicate Satan sinned. The fact that "again and again" God offered pardon indicates that Satan sinned knowingly and repeatedly. Otherwise it would not have been necessary for God to keep offereing pardon over and over again.
MM: You agree that Eve did not sin until she ate the forbidden fruit, even though she was guilty of doubting God's word way before she sinned, but you seem eager to believe Lucifer was guilty of sin before he committed himself to open rebellion.
Tom: Satan committed the unpardonable sin when he placed himself in open rebellion in the full knowledge of who God was and that he (Satan) was wrong. Your points here actually argue against your position, because Eve never placed herself in open rebellion against God, yet she sinned. This shows it is possible to be guilty of sin without committing oneself to open rebellion.
MM: The Bible clearly says that there is no remission for sins without the shedding of blood, and yet you seem convinced that it is possible for God to pardon sin without blood.
Tom: The Bible is talking about humans. For humans there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. Interestingly, for Satan there was, however. Why do you suppose these cases are different?
MM: I'm not as willing to disregard the word of God in order to believe Satan sinned and that God was willing to restore him without blood.
Tom: You don't need to. The Bible doesn't address the question. However, the Spirit of Prophesy does, and if you wanted to, you could regard that message.
MM: Nor am I willing to base an entire theology as to why Jesus had to die on such a tenuous premise.
Tom: This statement really doesn't make sense, because you have already stated that you agree with all the reasons I have given as to why Christ had to die. The bone of contention is not what I believe, but what you believe. That is, you accept the reasons I give, but just don't think they are sufficient. You think in addition to what the cross reveals, which heals us and motivates us (which you agree with), it was also necessary for God's wrath to be satisfied and for a debt to be paid in order that God could forgive us. So I am not giving any reasons for why Christ had to die based on the statement indicating Satan sinned.
My argument is that if the reason blood had to be shed was to make it possible for God to pardon man, then why wasn't it necessary for blood to be shed in order to pardon Satan? This seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me, and one for which I have not received an answer.
|
|
|
Re: Another look at why Jesus had to die?
#15222
08/08/05 03:44 AM
08/08/05 03:44 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Bob, the reason you are giving would imply God was at fault, it seems to me. Personally I would say there was no reason for Eve to doubt God. The Bible says she was deceived, which would imply there wasn't a reason for her to doubt God, it seems to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
