Are you suggesting J&W received and shared light not found in the Bible or in the SOP? Please explain.


Wrong. God used the SOP to help us understand the Bible – not to add to the Bible. Do you agree? If not, please explain why.


She is entitled to her opinion, but I happen to think she explains it better than he does. What she said about Waggoner was not a, Thus saith the Lord, as if God is mandating reading Waggoner’s explanation instead of White’s.


How, then, did Jesus destroy the works of the devil (using your definition) while He was here in the flesh?


Are you suggesting unfallen beings would be secure even if Jesus fails to produce the 144,000? And, what about the first point I made above?


Take a closer look at the five points listed above. I didn’t say the GC could have been won by a word. The quote you posted above is founded on the fact God will win the GC in the way I described above.


I like how your typo above rhymes. Yes, the Bible says the wages of sin is death, but it also goes on to spell out how, when, where, and why. That the law requires God to execute the death penalty in consequence of sin is clearly explained in the SOP.


I agree that the law of life is taking to give, but I disagree with you that sin results in death. If this were true, then what God said in Genesis 3:22 would have been impossible and therefore untrue. However, God cannot lie.


None of the passages Paul quoted clearly explain why Jesus had to die. If such passages existed in the Pentateuch you would be posting them profusely and rebuking me for not admitting it. Please, Tom, settle this issue once and forever by quoting from the Pentateuch where Moses plainly explains it. Thank you.

As I stated above, she said that Jones and Waggoner brought light that we would not have had unless someone else had brought it. I think that's clear enough. Here's the actual quote:



The underlined portion is something I fear, as I see many who appear to be doing just this very thing.



You said there's nothing new under the sun, apparently as an excuse to dismiss Jones and Waggoner. This same excuse could be used to dismiss the SOP.



When you agree with something she says, you present it as proof. When you disagree you say some word does not mean what it normally means or dismiss it altogether.



Good question! By revealing God's character.



Ellen White said that the universe was secured by the cross. This is what I was pointing out.



You didn't quote what you said, that is, the sentence I was commenting on. You said something to the effect that something was as good as done because God said something. This is what I was responding to.



Yes, that's cool.



I asked where in Scripture the law says this. So far, you haven't said.



Not taking to give, but receiving to give. Receiving from the hand of God.



I've quoted from the Scriptures, that "sin, when it is finished, brings forth death." Here's how one translation puts it:



Here's another:



Another one:



The most common translation is that sin "gives birth to death."

The SOP says that death is "the inevitable result of sin" (DA 764). So it is beyond me how you can assert that sin does not result in death.

You've never addressed the argument, as far as I can tell, that selfishness is not a principle which can sustain life. Would you please explain this?

To be clear what I'm asking, if sin does not does result in death, as you assert, and sin is in its essence selfishness, then it must be the case that selfishness does not lead to death. I find this idea very odd.



1.Paul says that the Gospel is Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
2.Paul says that the Gospel was preached to Abraham, and this is recorded in Moses.
3.Therefore Moses preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Do you agree with these points?

How do you define the word “destroyed”? I ask this question because as I look around the world I see plenty of evidence that the works of the devil and the works of the flesh are very much alive and kicking.


I know what you said, and it inspired a different question (see above), which you didn’t answer. If you refuse to answer it in your next response I will ask it again, so please, save me the trouble and just answer it. Thank you.


I don’t where in the Bible the law says anything about life or death. Do you? The law is rather brief. See Ex 20:3-17. It mostly says what to do and what not to do. It also says, “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”


I had in mind DA 21 “. . . takes to give.”


Sin results in “sleep” from which there will be a resurrection “unto condemnation,” which is the “resurrection unto damnation.”


No, I don’t agree. Nowhere does Paul quote from the Pentateuch where Moses clearly explains why Jesus had to die. Also, not once does Paul explain in the context of the gospel why Jesus had to die. Nor does he use words crucified and gospel in close proximity. Listen:

Romans
2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Galatians
3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

2 Thessalonians
1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

2 Timothy
1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

You mean "destroy"? John says that Jesus Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. Immediately after that he said that those who are born again do not continue to sin, so in context to destroy the works of the devil is to free one from sin, which happens to those who are born again, or converted. The reason you see the evidence you do is because many choose not to be converted.



No, I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting what I said, that the universe was secured by the cross, which is what we were discussing. You said, "4) And, the universe will not be secure until after it happens," so I pointed out the SOP statement that says the universe was secured by the cross, to point out that this is when this happened.



I agree with you that the law does not say the things you were claiming it did.



Ok.



The death referred to in Scripture is not sleep, but the second death. Anyway, I'm still not understanding how you can think that selfishness could support life.



Which point do you disagree with?



So you're saying that Paul did not explain Christ's death in the context of the Gospel? So not only Moses didn't explain it, but Paul as well? Do you think anybody did?

Amen! But your explanation applies more to my view of rebirth than it does to yours. According to your view people are born again ignorantly practicing many of the sinful habits they cultivated prior to rebirth. Thus, the works of the devil and the works of the flesh are very much alive and kicking.


You have an amazing way of making me work like a dog to get you to answer my questions. Reminds me of, "Who's on first?" Let me see if I can ask the question in such a way you feel compelled to answer my question in such a way I never have to ask it again. Unless, of course, you're responding to my question the way I respond to Kland's questions, in which case I will stop asking questions.

At any rate, here goes. If the 144,000 fail to materialize, will the universe be secure? Please elaborate. Thank you.


I take it, then, that you agree the law doesn't affirm your contradicting view either. Is that right?


If sin results in death, why, then, are people able to live to be 100 years old? Obviously there is something wrong with your observations.

Also, if sin results in death, why, then, did God station an angel to prevent sinners from accessing the tree of life? Please answer this question (as opposed to ignoring it).


All of them. Paul did not say the gospel is Christ and Him crucified. Nor did Moses say what Paul said about Abraham. And, nowhere did Moses say Jesus would die.


Apparently you agree with me since you have been unwilling, and mostly likely unable, to post passages which clearly explain why Jesus had to die. I've asked this question zillions of times and you have consistently refused to answer it. You are reduced to using logical deduction, which hasn't proven logical at all. Put the issue to rest by simply posting all those passages you keep alluding to but never post.

By the way, yes, I do think somebody has explained it clearly.

Don't you believe that people may be born again ignorantly practicing sinful habits, like smoking, Sabbath-breaking, drinking, polygamy, living together?



You have an amazing way of not acknowledging when you're in error. You've been saying the universe has not been made secure, but the SOP says it was made secure by the cross. Before jumping to some new question, it would be nice if you would acknowledge points on questions which have already been raised.



What does this mean?



I don't see this as a possibility. It would be like asking, "If Jesus Christ did not come again, will the universe be secure?" Certainly the answer is no, the universe would not be secure if Jesus Christ did not come again, but does that mean the universe is not secure now? I don't think so, especially since we've been told that the universe was made secure by the cross.



What? You're asserting the law says something. I asked where. You then say it doesn't, which I agree with. My view is that you're view was wrong. If you agree with me that you were wrong, then we're in agreement.



As I've pointed out to you many times, this is dealing with the second death.



Perhaps there's something wrong with your comprehension.



MM, you keep asking the same things over and over again. I answered this in great detail. It's not ignoring your question if I answer it and you forget what I said.

In brief, that sin results in death is not in doubt:



This says that had Satan been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have died. Furthermore it calls death "the inevitable result of sin." So that death is the inevitable result of sin is clear.

Regarding why God did not want Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of life, it is because He did not want to perpetuate suffering. After the GC is ended, and Christ comes again, then a world can exist without misery and suffering, and life can be perpetuated without reservation.



Ok, let's look at each point. First of all, that the Gospel is Jesus Christ and Him crucified.



Here Paul says he was determined to know nothing except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. A few verses earlier he wrote:



I think this should be sufficient to establish point 1, since Paul was determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and while saying this he was preaching the Gospel, the presentation of which meant the cross of Christ being presented with power.

Regarding point 2, that Paul says that the Gospel was reached to Abraham:



So this established point 2.

Regarding point 3, that this is recorded in Moses, this is also established in the above quote, since Paul was quoting Moses to establish that the Gospel was preached to Abraham.



I've answered it repeatedly. I've pointed you to specific passages. I've quoted specific verses. You're free to disagree, and continue asserting that neither Moses nor Paul explained why Jesus had to die, but it's not just to assert I am "consistently refusing" to answer your question. I've suggested you take a look at Galatians 3 and Romans 4. Here's something from Romans 4:



2 Cor. 5:21 tells us that Christ was made to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God.

In Romans 3 Paul wrote:



Surely you've read these things. I don't understand how you can read Paul and not understand that his Gospel explains why Jesus Christ had to die. I've never heard anyone suggest this. There's certainly no point in discussing Moses if you can't see Christ's death explained in Paul's preaching.



But not Paul? Or Moses? How about Jesus Christ? Did He explain it? Or any Scripture writer? Is there any Scripture writer that you see as explaining why Christ had to die? If so, who?

Yes, and in such cases some of the works of the devil are alive and kicking. However, I also happen to believe there are times when people experience rebirth (i.e. old man habits crucified) and conversion (i.e. obeying everything Jesus commanded) simultaneously. In such cases, the works of the devil are destroyed. Your view does not allow for such cases.


I believe the universe was made secure at the cross. I also believe it has been secure from the moment Jesus became the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. I also believe it hinges on the 144,000 demonstrating the benefits of Jesus’ blood during the time of trouble. All these things have been living realities in minds of unfallen beings since the day Jesus first proclaimed them.


I don’t enjoy his questions and comments, and I answer them briefly just to be nice. His posts are not rewarding to read. If you feel this way about me, please let me know, and you’ll never hear from me again.


Thank you for answering my question thoroughly and forthrightly. It sounds to me, though, that although the cross made the universe secure you believe their security would be forfeited if the 144,000 fail to materialize and Jesus does not return. But you also believe failure is not a possibility. Given what you believe about God’s knowledge of the future, how can you be personally so sure the 144,000 will succeed?


Of course we both know my view isn’t wrong because it is confirmed through the SOP. Agreeing with you that the Bible doesn’t portray the law as saying anything about life and death isn’t the same thing as saying I don’t believe the law requires God to execute the death penalty in consequence of sin. 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}

Fallen man, because of his guilt, could no longer come directly before God with his supplications; for his transgression of the divine law had placed an impassable barrier between the holy God and the transgressor. But a plan was devised that the sentence of death should rest upon a Substitute. In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Thou shalt surely die." {Con 21.3}


In the past (can’t quote where) you’ve suggested something to the effect that God supernaturally prevents sinners from succumbing to the natural cause and effect relationship that exists between sin and death, namely, instant death, and that His intervention allows sinners to die a gradual first death. And, of course, I agree with this insight. However, I also happen to believe denying sinners access to the tree of life is what made these unusual measures necessary. You seem unwilling to acknowledge the fact if God had not barred access to the tree of life that sinners would have been immortal. Listen:

They were visited by angels, and were granted communion with their Maker, with no obscuring veil between. They were full of the vigor imparted by the tree of life, and their intellectual power was but little less than that of the angels.--Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 45-50. {RC 135.5}

[Our first parents] were to enjoy communion with God and with holy angels; but . . . their loyalty must be tested. . . . Obedience, perfect and perpetual, was the condition of eternal happiness. On this condition he [man] was to have access to the tree of life.--Ibid., pp. 48, 49. {RC 135.6}

In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life. Deprived of this, his vitality would gradually diminish until life should become extinct. . . . He [Satan] hoped that they would eat of the tree of life. . . . But after man's fall, holy angels were immediately commissioned to guard the tree of life. . . . None of the family of Adam were permitted to pass that barrier to partake of the life-giving fruit; hence there is not an immortal sinner.--Ibid., p. 60. {RC 135.7}


Yes, the gospel, of course, includes Christ and Him crucified. But it includes many other things as well. Just read the rest of Corinthians and you’ll see what I mean. IOW, the gospel embraces every aspect of life. My point is Paul didn’t use the words “gospel” and “crucified” in the same context.


Yes, of course, Paul said it. But my point is Moses didn’t say what Paul said about it. I wrote, “Nor did Moses say what Paul said about Abraham.” Please bear in mind I’ve been asking you all along to prove from the Pentateuch that Jesus had to die or that Moses said the sacrificial animals symbolize the death of Jesus. That’s what your list above is designed to prove – not that Paul believed it.


Again, I’m not asking you to prove Paul believed it; instead, I’m asking you to prove Moses plainly taught it.


And I responded to these posts and demonstrated how they do not say what you are asserting. Your saying so doesn’t make it so.


This describes what Jesus did – but not why He had to do it.


Same comment as above.


Here’s what Paul actually said (as opposed to what you quoted above):

3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
3:26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Again, this describes what Jesus accomplished – but not why He had to die. I agree it is implied, but it certainly isn’t plainly stated. Moses never even came close to implying why Jesus had to die. And you know it.


None of the people you named above clearly explain why Jesus had to die. They simply say He suffered and died with our sins on the cross. The SOP is the only place where God has clearly explained why Jesus had to die.

BTW, let’s not forget the real reason why I brought this up – I believe the fact Moses did not give the Jews better reasons for obeying God (as it relates to sacrificing animals) than merely, Because He said so, it proves it is possible to obey God before understanding His reasons for commanding obedience, and that such is not slavish.

Agreed. I don't believe in this idea of instant sanctification or perfection of character.



Inspiration supports the first "I believe," but not the other two. At least, DA 764 says clearly that the cross secured the universe, making very clear that before the cross the universe was not secured, but after the cross it was. If the cross already secured it, then it cannot hinge on something yet future.



If I didn't want to converse with you, I simply wouldn't respond to your posts.

Why do you not find kland's posts rewarding to read?

Since you're responding out of a desire to be nice, it would be more nice, IMO, if you're responses had more to them.



Given God knows every possible future, and given that in every possible future the 144,000 materialize, it will surely come to pass. The details can change (e.g., this could have happened shortly after the 1888 message) but not that fact of its happening.



Ok, so your idea is that this isn't in the law itself, or in Scripture, but Ellen White had this idea, and it's true because she had the idea, although it's not in the law itself, nor in Scripture?



This would have required continuously eating of the tree of life, not a one time eating. The tree of life is immaterial to this whole question. Life comes from God, not from a tree. The point is that God, if He chose, could indefinitely prolong the existence of beings who have chosen to sin, but this isn't something which God chooses to do. He gives people the opportunity to develop their character, which is explained in the DA 764 quote. This quote points out the following:



There's absolutely nothing about a tree involved here! Death is "the inevitable result of sin," again, having nothing to do with any tree.



The gospel, as well as Christ and Him crucified, encompassed everything in Paul's thinking. This is a useful principle in understanding his writings.

If you look at Gal. 3, the first third of the chapter or so, you will see that Paul is simultaneously speaking of the Gospel and Christ crucified. In fact, to Paul, Christ crucified was the Gospel. By the way, Ellen White had the same thought as Paul, writing something to the effect that Christ hanging on the cross was the Gospel.

Romans 3 is another example where the Gospel and Christ crucified are used in the same context. Romans 4 is another. Romans 10 is another (see especially vss. 9,10 to the end of the chapter).



You said you disagree with each point. Point 2 was that Paul said the Gospel was preached to Abraham. You were wrong to say you disagreed with this point, since you agree with it.



Paul thought he did. So did Jesus Christ.



You wrote, "I've asked this question zillions of times and you have consistently refused to answer it." If I've responded to your question, and you've responded to my posts with some sort of rebuttal, this proves on the face of it that your assertion here is false. I'm hardly refusing to answer your question if you're having to come up with rebuttals to my answers.

To use your words, "you're saying so doesn't make it so." It's clear I have not been "consistently refusing" to answer your question, so it would be nice if you would refrain from saying things like this which you know to be false.



"He was delivered over to death for our sins and raised to life for our justification" explains why. The "for our sins" and "for our justification" is dealing with why.



That "we might be made the righteousness of God" is why.



You know Jesus didn't actually speak in King James English. I quoted one translation while you quoted another. It's absurd to quote one English translation over another and say this is "what Jesus actually said." You'd be better off quoting Greek, if you want to say "what Jesus actually said," but even doing that wouldn't be right because Jesus didn't actually speak in Greek, but at least it would be closer to the truth.

But to say, when I quote Scripture, that Jesus Christ didn't actually say what I said, but said something else which is simply another English translation isn't a reasonable assertion.



It is plainly stated. This was Paul's whole purpose, to plainly state why Jesus Christ had to die, and he did so. Christ died to declare God's righteousness that He might be just and the justified of all who believe in Him. That's clearly stated.



We were talking about Paul. If you don't think Paul taught why Christ had to die, you certainly wouldn't believe Moses did. There's not even a point to discussing Moses if we can't agree regarding Paul.



Sounds like a good new topic for a thread! Was the world ignorant of why Jesus Christ had to die until the latter half of the 19th century when Ellen White explained why.



I think we can forget this for the time being. If you don't believe that Paul, or John, or Jesus Christ, explained why Christ had to die, we have more important things to talk about.

I haven’t described instant sanctification or instant character perfection. I’m simply referring to the following state of experience:


I believe the two passages above apply to newborn believers who are obeying everything Jesus commanded, which is the result of studying the 28 beliefs with a teacher in the Remnant Church (a teacher like you or Doug Batchelor or Dwight Nelson). Nevertheless, they have not attained unto instant sanctification or instant character perfection. There is no such thing as instant sanctification or instant character perfection. Eternity isn’t long enough to reach sanctified perfection, that is, perfection in the sense there is no more room to grow and become more mature in the fruits of the Spirit. The saints will always be growing, always maturing, always becoming more and more perfect, more and more like Jesus.

Peter, Paul, and John also describe these kinds of newborn believers:


The people portrayed in the passages above are newborn believers who are abiding in Jesus experiencing grow in grace while daily maturing in the fruits of the Spirit – not one fruit or attribute of God’s character is missing. They are obeying everything Jesus commanded. Nevertheless, they have not attained unto instant sanctification or instant character perfection. As mentioned above, believers do not begin the work of perfecting the righteous traits of character God implanted in them until the instant they experience rebirth. From then on it is their privilege to enjoy unbroken growth in grace, uninterrupted victories over sin, self, and Satan. Listen:


Again, I believe the passages above apply to newborn believers who are obeying everything Jesus commanded, which is the result of studying the 28 beliefs with a teacher in the Remnant Church. "When this mighty change has taken place in the sinner, he has passed from death unto life, from sin unto holiness, from transgression and rebellion to obedience and loyalty." Nevertheless, they have not attained unto instant sanctification or instant character perfection.

Through faith the unfallen beings have been secure in the truth about God’s character and kingdom from the moment Jesus announced the plan of salvation. I realize you believe they were living in a state of fear and doubt and disbelief until the instant Jesus literally died on the cross, but I totally disagree with you.


You may have seen the post where I explained I am not going to respond to his comments and question unless I feel especially impressed to do so. In that post I also explained why I don’t find his posts rewarding. Thank you for the advice you shared above.


Oh, that’s right, now I remember you explaining this awhile ago. I don’t remember, though, how you know it to be true. Did you read it in the SOP? That is, where did you read all the different ways the future could play out involve the 144,000 succeeding?


Not necessarily. Help me out here. Where in the Bible did God clearly explain the following insights:


Is it possible God did not share all of the details expressed above with those whose writings make up the Bible? If so, does it mean they are less inspired, less authoritative?


I am unable to arrive at this conclusion because of the truthfulness of the following inspired passages:


Which one of the passages above inspires you to believe regularly eating of the tree of life would *not* have resulted immortal sinners? You may be tempted to disregard these passages and post other quotes which you believe contradict them, but please, show me how the passages above refute the idea sinners could live forever if allowed regular access to the tree of life. Or, do you agree with me that they do indeed clearly say sinners could live forever? Tom, I am afraid you are going to disregard showing me from the passages above how my conclusions are dead wrong. Please, Tom, please use these passages to disprove my view.


Again, I agree the death of Jesus is an integral part of the gospel, however, the point I am making is that it isn’t clearly spelled out in the Bible, that is, nowhere in the Bible does it plainly say, “The death of Jesus is an integral part of the gospel.” Yes, it is implied, but it is not clearly spelled out. Ellen wrote:


As you can see, the gospel is many things – it is the truth as it is in Jesus.


Here are your three points:

1.Paul says that the Gospel is Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
2.Paul says that the Gospel was preached to Abraham, and this is recorded in Moses.
3.Therefore Moses preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

As you can see, you didn’t quite quote point number two accurately. As I said before, yes, Paul said the gospel was preached unto Abraham, and, no, Moses didn’t say it, that is, Moses didn’t say the gospel was preached unto Abraham. Moses simply wrote, “In thee shall all nations be blessed.” That’s it. He didn’t say anything about the gospel. It was Paul who made the connection, who recorded it.


No, it was Paul who said the gospel was preached unto Abraham, not Moses. That is, Paul didn’t quote Moses as saying, “The gospel was preached unto Abraham.” Neither did Jesus say Moses said it. Jesus said, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.” “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” Again, Jesus didn’t quote Moses as saying, “The Son of God will die as symbolized by animal sacrifices.” Which is why He had to “expound” on what Moses wrote.

BTW, do you have any idea which passages in the Pentateuch Jesus might have cited as He “expounded” on the road to Emmaus?


Yes, you have been posting passages but not from Moses. You have quoted Paul and Jesus but you have yet to quote Moses. All along I’ve been begging you to quote Moses but you have refused.

Here’s what you say, “If you don't think Paul taught why Christ had to die, you certainly wouldn't believe Moses did. There's not even a point to discussing Moses if we can't agree regarding Paul.” “If you don't believe that Paul, or John, or Jesus Christ, explained why Christ had to die, we have more important things to talk about.”

Rather than honoring my request for you to quote from Moses, you are suggesting we drop it. So, how can you say you’ve done exactly what I have asked you to do when in reality you plainly say you’re not going to do it until I agree with you that Paul and Jesus believed Moses clearly explained why Jesus had to die and that the animal sacrifices symbolize His death? Not once have you quoted from Moses.

BTW, let’s not forget the real reason why I brought this up – I believe the fact Moses did not give the Jews better reasons for obeying God (as it relates to sacrificing animals) than merely, Because He said so, it proves it is possible to obey God before understanding His reasons for commanding obedience, and that such is not slavish.


In the KJV it reads, righteousness “shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” I agree it can be taken the way you are suggesting, but it certainly doesn’t say so “clearly”, that is, it doesn’t clearly say Jesus had to die because . . . (you fill in the blank). Nor does it clearly explain what His resurrection accomplishes that His death didn’t.


“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” This is addressing His life, not His death.


Tom, I didn’t say anything about Jesus. I was talking about Paul. Of course the same thing applies to Paul. Here’s what Ellen wrote about this passage:


“He has paid the price for the sinner's redemption. Yet it is only through faith in His blood that Jesus can justify the believer.” “He is justified through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, who stands in the courts of heaven as the sinner's substitute and surety.” Her commentary clearly explains what Paul was trying to convey to the Romans. Jesus earned the right on the cross to pardon sinners and to empower them to live without sinning. 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} “In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Thou shalt surely die." {Con 21.3}