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}