Why isn't there any taint of earthly corruption in the censer? What does she mean by saying that "He puts His own spotless righteousness"?

OK, but this was a provision of the plan of salvation. Since Christ would die on the cross for human beings, human beings must have a period of probation to accept or reject His sacrifice. This has nothing to do with substitution or with the statement, “One died for all, therefore all died.”


This does not make any sense. If “all died” the first death, there would be no need for them to die the first death again. And if “all died” the second death, there would be no need for them to die the second death again, in which case every human being would be saved.
The text does refer to the second death, but this provision becomes effective only for those who are in Christ. Since they have already experienced the second death in the person of their representative, they don’t need to experience it again.

“In Christ we are as if we had suffered the penalty we have incurred.” {PUR, September 4, 1913 par. 3}


A hypothesis is by definition tentative, and this is not the case here at all. Because we know for sure how things would have played out, a comparison between Lucifer’s pardon and man’s pardon is both possible and legitimate.


Nothing bad would have resulted from a graver fault, while innumerable bad things resulted from a supposedly lesser fault. Anyone can see that there must be something very wrong with such a universe – and with such a Creator.


This is completely false. It should read like that:

Adam:
a. envied God’s position
b. sought to exalt himself and be like God
c. indulged a spirit of discontent
d. stole from God and did what God forbade

e. his motivation was self-exaltation

“The prospect of becoming gods, knowing good and evil, was pleasing to Adam and Eve, and they yielded to the temptation.” {ST, November 22, 1899 par. 1}

“The human ambition has been seeking for that kind of knowledge that will bring to them glory and self-exaltation and supremacy. Thus Adam and Eve were worked upon by Satan.” {CC 17.7}

What Adam did is comparable to what the angels who followed Satan’s suggestions did – both they and Adam were animated by the same spirit as Satan. Adam was warned about the consequences of his disobedience and he made a presumptuous decision to disobey. Lucifer, however, before his fall, wasn’t completely aware of the results of his actions and hadn’t yet made a presumptuous decision to disobey God.


In relation to men, God’s wrath is not visited upon sins of ignorance; I believe the same is true in Lucifer’s case. His sin was, up to a certain extent, a sin of ignorance. In fact, however, I think we don’t have enough elements to understand everything involved in Lucifer’s case, so this whole discussion has a great deal of speculation.


Does this mean that we couldn’t pay for our sin, therefore Christ paid for it?


This is an invalid argument or, rather, it’s no argument at all. There is no relation, and no attempt at showing a relation, between the premise and the conclusion.
In a valid argument, the conclusion follows from the premises, so if you grant the premises, you must grant the conclusion. Since Satan is very clever, of course he uses valid arguments. But since the conclusion is false, at least one of the premises is false, and the argument is, thus, unsound.


The inhabitants of the universe, before the cross at least, didn’t have sufficient elements to determine if the premises (and thus, the conclusions) were true or false.


After his fall, God did refuse to pardon him.


This is a subjective reason. He did say he had repented and wished to be readmitted in heaven, and the inhabitants of the universe had no means of ascertaining whether his repentance had been genuine or not. Only the cross demonstrated that his repentance had not been genuine, because he killed Christ. So, God needed the cross to demonstrate a lot of things to the universe. He needed the cross to demonstrate that the law is immutable. He needed the cross to demonstrate that sin is a grave thing, and to remove from God all charge of lessening the guilt of sin. He needed the cross to demonstrate that Satan hadn’t been forgiven because his repentance hadn’t been genuine.


First, Peter wasn’t wrong, for the intent to slay is considered by God as the actual slaying. Second, He was killed by our sins. And third, as I pointed out previously, those who had an actual participation in Christ’s death or who would have killed Him if they had had an opportunity, will be raised to witness His coming. If it were true that this is everybody’s sin, everybody would be raised on this occasion.

1. Because the "prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people" which He "gathers into" the censer have no taint of earthly corruption.

2. Do you remember the slogan - "Everything tastes better with Blue Bonnet on it"? That's why Jesus must add His spotless righteousness to the mix in the censer. Not because the "prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people" are sinful or corrupt, but because adding His righteousness makes it sweeter. Again, none of the quotes below teach Jesus must add His righteousness because the part we contribute is sinful or corrupt. In fact, sin is not allowed in the censer.

2 Corinthians
2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
2:16 To the one [we are] the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who [is] sufficient for these things?

"His offering is complete, and as our Intercessor He executes His self-appointed work, holding before God the censer containing His own spotless merits and the prayers, confessions, and thanksgiving of His people. Perfumed with the fragrance of His righteousness, these ascend to God as a sweet savor. {COL 156.2}

"There must be nothing less given than duty prescribes, and there cannot be one jot more given than they have first received; and all must be laid upon the fire of Christ's righteousness to cleanse it from its earthly odor before it rises in a cloud of fragrant incense to the great Jehovah and is accepted as a sweet savor. {FW 23.2}

"The Lord calls upon His people to arouse and to show their faith by their works. In times past, when our numbers were few, when those who were able felt it their duty to take stock in our publishing house, their prayers and their alms, the fruit of persevering, self-denying effort, came before God as a sweet savor. {PM 118.3}

"The religious services, the prayers, the praise, the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers as incense to the heavenly sanctuary, but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God. They ascend not in spotless purity, and unless the Intercessor, who is at God's right hand, presents and purifies all by His righteousness, it is not acceptable to God. All incense from earthly tabernacles must be moist with the cleansing drops of the blood of Christ. He holds before the Father the censer of His own merits, in which there is no taint of earthly corruption. He gathers into this censer the prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people, and with these He puts His own spotless righteousness. Then, perfumed with the merits of Christ's propitiation, the incense comes up before God wholly and entirely acceptable. Then gracious answers are returned. {1SM 344.2}

I think it does. "To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life" means "If Christ had not die, we would not have earthly life." It doesn't mean, "God had to give man probation so that man could have an opportunity to accept or reject His sacrifice." (which isn't to say this latter statement isn't true; it is a true statement, it's just not what "To the death of Christ we owe even this earthly life" means.)



I said, "In this case, the death would be speaking of the second death" so the first death can be excluded.



??? Why? A human being is saved because He accepts Christ, not because he dies a second death. Why would Christ's dying their death mean they would be saved?

In regards to your statement, "there would be no need for them to die the second death again" this is absolutely correct! Indeed, this agrees with what I quoted from Waggoner. Here's a portion:



He expresses a similar thought here:





It says "therefore all died." This is in the past. "Therefore all died" doesn't mean "a provision becomes effective only for those who are in Christ."



This is true of everyone. No one needs to experience the second death. Christ has already suffered that death for them. This is true of every person. Otherwise we'd have the doctrine of the limited atonement. Christ did not suffer the second death only for those who accept Him.



As I explained, knowing what the result of they hypothetical situation is doesn't make it not hypothetical!

Here's another example. Suppose you flip a two-headed coin. You know it will come up heads. Flipping the coin is still a hypothetical scenario. What makes it hypothetical is not knowing the result, but it's not being something which has already happened, but something the could happen: iow, a hypothetical scenario.

Here's another example. Suppose you jump off a diving board into a pool. You will get wet. Jumping off the diving board is a hypothetical scenario, even though you know what will happen.



Why do you say nothing bad would have resulted from a graver fault? Regarding the innumerable bad things that happened from the lesser fault, these innumerable bad things happened because of Satan, not because of God! How can you claim God is unjust because of the bad things Satan does?



If Lucifer had repented, he wouldn't have been available to do the bad things he was doing to man. So he would have suffered less than man did, but that's because he himself would not have been doing the bad things that he did to man.

This isn't God's fault!



I don't think so:





Lucifer allowed his heart to be filled with envy and hatred of Christ. Even if he weren't fully aware of the results of doing this, this is still sin. God offered to pardon Lucifer of this sin.

Lucifer was envious of Christ's position. God met with Lucifer to explain this. Lucifer's sins took place over a longer time period, and he much greater knowledge of God than Adam did. Nobody was deceiving Lucifer, except himself. At every step, God counseled Lucifer as to what he was doing, and what the results of his actions would be. But Lucifer continued to indulge a spirit of discontent. If you wish to character Adam's actions as indulging a spirit of discontent, this would only be true to a minuscule amount in comparison to Satan. Adam did this one time, for a moment; Lucifer did this over and over again, over a prolonged period of time.

Lucifer sought to hide what he was doing under a guise of reverence. Why? In order to deceive those whom he would gain as followers. He knew what he was doing. He knew he was seeking to exalt himself above God. This was a deliberate plan that he had. Adam wasn't scheming or planning this way.

Eve even less! She was deceived. She didn't make a premeditated plan to exalt herself. She listened to the arguments of the serpent, and was deceived by these arguments.

Which is worse? To lead someone into sin by deceiving them into so doing, or be deceived into sin?

Eve was certainly less aware of the results of her actions than Lucifer was of his.



Regardless of what we know about the case, you are making an argument based on some assumptions. It looks like your assumption is that unless a person is 100% convinced he is doing wrong, then what he does is a sin of ignorance. I was asking for confirmation of this point.

Regarding Eve, for example, I assume you would argue that she was 100% sure that what she was doing was wrong, and hers was in no way a sin of ignorance. Is that right?



I like the way Fifield put it:



A.2+2=4
B.Therefore God is unjust.

Now A is a true premise, and B is an accusation against God, based on faulty reasoning, even though the premise is true.



Right. I was giving this as an example of an invalid argument that God is unjust.



You were right the first time. It's an invalid argument.



Because Satan is clever, he uses clever arguments. Your statement implies that only valid arguments are clever. That's not true by a long, long ways! There are many exceedingly clever arguments which are not valid. Anyone who has dealt with Mathematics knows this. Discovering where the invalidity of an argument occurs can be an extremely daunting task.



This would be the case if the argument were valid.

What I was taking issue with was your declaration that any argument of Satan's must have false assumptions. I asked why you make the assumption that it's not possible to form an accusation against God based on true premises. There's no reason why an argument against God could not include true premises.



I don't know what you mean by "sufficient elements." Basically Satan's accusations involved God's character: God is severe, harsh, self-centered, doesn't have the best interests of his creatures in mind, and so forth. God had to allow time for the principles of the principles (i.e. protagonists) to be seen.

If Satan made some specific argument based on a false premise, it would have to be demonstrated in some way that the premise is false. That's the only way an argument based on a false premise can be disproven.



Not in the sense you appear to me to be suggesting. It's not that God arbitrarily refused to pardon him, but it's like C. S. Lewis said: he wanted to "go back" without really going back. That is, if Satan had truly been repentant, God would have taken him back. Of course He would have! That's His character. Just look at the prodigal son. He wasn't pardoned because he wasn't repentant. Remember that Christ wept with Satan when he asked to come back. Christ wanted him back, and wanted to be able to take him back, but he had gone too far. He was no longer willing or able to respond to truth, and this is the whole problem with sin. It hardens our sensibilities, and our abilities to respond to the principles of God, including truth and love.

(More later)

1. Because the "prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people" which He "gathers into" the censer have no taint of earthly corruption.

2. Do you remember the slogan - "Everything tastes better with Blue Bonnet on it"? That's why Jesus must add His spotless righteousness to the mix in the censer. Not because the "prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people" are sinful or corrupt, but because adding His righteousness makes it sweeter. Again, none of the quotes below teach Jesus must add His righteousness because the part we contribute is sinful or corrupt. In fact, sin is not allowed in the censer.

I think your interpretation does violence to the context, MM, but thanks for your answer.

I would say a lot of violence.

From your own quote: The religious services, the prayers, the praise, the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers as incense to the heavenly sanctuary, but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God.

They most certainly are tainted by earthly corruption. They need to be purified by blood.

I think this would be a summary of my main points in this discussion:

Gal. 3:13 makes clear that transgression of the law makes the transgressor liable to its curse, which is bearing the guilt incurred. If we bore the guilt of our own sins, it would crush us. The curse is not removed by keeping the law in the future. The curse is only removed by Christ’s act of bearing it in our stead.

“Christ died because there was no other hope for the transgressor. He might try to keep God's law in the future; but the debt which he had incurred in the past remained, and the law must condemn him to death. Christ came to pay that debt for the sinner which it was impossible for him to pay for himself. Thus, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, sinful man was granted another trial.” {RH, March 8, 1881 par. 4}

Gal. 3:13 and 2 Cor. 5:14 are complementary. The liability to the curse is removed from those who are united by faith to Christ because Christ took on Himself the curse which the Law pronounces on the law-breaker. If one died for all, then all died. In Christ I am as if I had borne the curse and, therefore, I become free from it.

“In Christ we are as if we had suffered the penalty we have incurred. {PUR, September 4, 1913 par. 3}

The passage continues:

“In Christ I am as if I had obeyed, and rendered perfect obedience to the law, which we can not perfectly obey without Christ imparts to us His merits and His righteousness” (Ibidem).

Since the law requires perfect obedience, that’s why we need a Substitute. The law considers both the death and the obedience of the Substitute as being our own death and obedience.

When Christ forgives us, it’s as if He had done what we did, and as if we had done what He did. This makes God’s forgiveness different from human forgiveness, and only makes sense from a legal perspective, in my opinion.

Christ bore the curse in everybody's stead, so His bearing it is not sufficient for it to be removed from us.

From "Christ and His Righteousness"



As Ellen White puts it, every since which is confessed with a contrite heart, God removes.

The problem I see with the summary is that it is considering things as if the problem were strictly or primarily a legal one. I perceive our problem is primarily one of being out of harmony with God; we need to be set right with Him. In order to be set right, we need to perceive the truth about God, and about ourselves. The revelation of God through Jesus Christ reveals these truths to us, drawing us to repentance. If we repent, we become members of God's family, born again by the Spirit. The process is described here:



Another statement, presenting the idea more concisely:



I suppose a simple way of stating our differences is that I perceive that our problems are fixed by revelation, combined with the power of the Holy Spirit. That is, it is what the cross reveals that saves us, provided we respond to the appeals of the Holy Spirit made on the basis of that revelation.

Arnold, are you saying the prayers and praise of true believers, people who are abiding in Jesus, are sinful? If so, must they be repent of? And, is such repentance tainted with sin and earthly corruption?


Also, please consider the case of the 144,000 after probation closes. ". . . it is needful for them to be placed in the furnace of fire; their earthliness must be consumed, that the image of Christ may be perfectly reflected." {GC 621.1} Is such earthliness sinful and in need of repentance?