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).