I'm going to post this in two posts. The first one is on the sin problem. The second on the atonement. These quotes are form Ty Gibson's book "Shades of Grace."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The law is not an arbitrary set of rules made up at random by God to prove His authority over us, but rather a practical explanation of what love looks like in real life…Sin is anything contrary to the character of God; more specifically, anything contrary to His love…

Love is God’s law, the principle by which He lives. It is a law because it is not arbitrary, but based on reality as it is, governing life by its righteous principles. Love is the law by which God made and sustains life….

Sin is the opposite, antagonistic principle at war with the law of love. Do not view sin as merely an alternative way of living, which happens to be harmlessly different from God’s way. God’s way is the only way to live, not because He happens to be more powerful and can arbitrarily punish us if we don’t comply, but because life is actually, intrinsically present only in God’s way, which is the way of love. The problem with sin is that it is wrong, actually, essentially, inherently wrong. And it is wrong for good reason, not just because the One in charge doesn’t like it. To be sure, God does not like sin, but He doesn’t like it because of what it does to is victims, not because He is a picky control freak who decided to come up with a list of arbitrary rules to keep us under His thumb. Sin, by its very nature, is anti-life. It is intrinsically destructive. Hence the Bible calls it the “law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2).

Once the nature of sin is understood, it is easy to see why sin is a law of death: sin is selfishness, the antithesis of love. As such, it leads inevitably to the exclusion of, and isolation from, the sustaining love and support of all others….

Because God’s love is the law of the universe, by which He created and sustains all things, the principles of that law are designed into our very natures. Within our psycho-emotional makeup, love is encoded as the law of life. When we violate that law, a malfunction signal issues a warning in the form of guilt. That part of our minds we call *conscience* senses discomfort with sin and identifies it as a destructive virus in the computer system, so to speak. Guilt is not arbitrarily imposed by God any more than His law is arbitrary. He is the Architect of conscience, but He is not the source of guilt. He made us with the capacity to feel guilt as a merciful and wise deterrent to sin, desiring, of course, that we would never experience its pain….

While God does not desire that anyone ever experience physical pain or the psychological pain of guilt, even more so He does not desire our utter destruction. Pain is a built-in mercy mechanism intended to aid in the preservation of life. Pain is not an indication that God is exercising some kind of power above, beyond, or contrary to His law of love in order to inflict suffering as an arbitrary punishment for sin. Punishment is organic to sin itself….

It is commonly thought that the connection between sin and death is imply that if we don’t repent of our sins God will kill us. Often no actual, intrinsic relationship is discerned between sin and death. But even a casual consideration of Scripture on this point persuades us otherwise. Notice just these few examples (quotes Gal. 6:7, 8; Rom. 6:16, 21-23; Rom. 8:6; Rom. 8:13; Prov. 8:36; James 1:15)…

So, when Paul says that holiness results in eternal life, he is not removing God from the equation and making life a mere naturalistic cause and effect matter. He is simply describing *how* God gives us eternal life….

God does not threaten, “If you keep sinning, I will kill you.” Rather, He warns, “If you continue in sin, you will die,” for “sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” And so He pleads, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die …? (Ezek. 33:11). We’re caught off guard by a question like this from God. We are more inclined to ask Him, “Why do You kill?” But He points to our sin and asks us, “Why do you choose death?”…

(from chapter 6, "Circle of Life, Line of Death")

From chapter 8, "From Whom We Avert Our Eyes."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(quotes Rom. 5:11; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 2:24, 25; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15)
Please not the recurring point in the preceding verses:
· Through Christ we receive “atonement”; we are made one with God.
· The purpose of the substitutionary death of Christ is to “bring us to God”; not Him to us. God has demonstrated His reconciled position toward us in Christ.
· Through sin we have gone “astray”; but through the sacrifice of Christ we “are not returned” to God.
· The love of Christ, revealed in His death, causes us to cease living for self and to start living for Him; we are reestablished in the circle of selfless, other-centered love through the atoning death of Christ….

(discussing the three-party picture of the atonement)
1. The sinner, who has aroused the anger of God.
2. A wrathful God, who needs personal satisfaction that can only be derived from inflicting suffering and imposing death; only then will He even consider letting us off the hook with forgiveness.
3. A third-party victim, who is made to suffer and die as a substitute for the sinner.

There are a number of serious problems with the three-party picture, foremost of which is that it makes no legal or moral sense for an innocent third-party victim to suffer the penalty for the wrongdoer. If such an arrangement could actually satisfy God, then we would be forced to conclude that His law and His wrath are irrational and arbitrary, meaning there is no actual relationship between law and sin and death. If God’s wrath can be appeased by venting rage on an innocent third party, then it follows that there is no real problem with sin other than the fact that God doesn’t want us doing it: His law is arbitrary. Moreover, since we have failed to meet His arbitrary demands, we had better suffer ourselves or find a whipping boy to suffer in our place: His wrath is arbitrary.

Biblical Christianity proclaims, in extreme contrast to the third-party view of substitution, that God has given Himself as our Substitute, to bear our sin and its inherent, divinely-ordained penalty. Hence there are only two parties involved in the atonement: 1. The sinner, who has aroused in God a painful tension between a holy, rational anger against sin and an equally holy, rational mercy toward the sinner. 2. An infinitely just an definitely merciful God, who loves us so selflessly that He has chosen to give Himself to suffer and die as our Substitute….

So what actually happened on that hill far away as the Son of God hung between heaven and earth? Did Christ bear the wrath of God at Calvary? What part did the Father act in the suffering and death of Christ? A number of Scriptures bear a consistent testimony to answer these questions:

(quotes Acts 2:23, 24; Acts 4:24-28) ….

Did the Father cause the suffering and death of Christ?

Yes and no!

Yes, if we mean He delivered Him over to suffering and death according to His own wise purpose of grace. Yes, if we mean that the Father gave up His Son to experience the tormenting psychological agony of our guilt.

No, if we mean He acted as an arbitrary source of pain and death, as the tormentor and executioner of His Son. No, if we mean that the Father assumed a position of vicious hostility toward His Son. Christ suffered and died at *our* hands, under the burden of *our* sin, by the gracious, self-sacrificing purpose of the Father….

In holy hatred of sin and unrelenting love for the sinner, the Father handed over His Son to bear the guilt inherent in our sin and to endure the selfish, murderous rage lashing out from our sin. This fits perfectly with Paul’s definition of divine wrath. He explains that it is God giving sinners over to receive in themselves the penalty inherent in their sin (Romans 1:18-28). Christ felt “forsaken” by God, “delivered” up to suffer all that sin ultimately is, not pounced upon with hostility.

The Father was right there with His Son all along, behind the darkening veil imposed by our sin, feeling the pain of the agonizing separation.

I can love a God like that. I am so glad He is that kind of God. You can love Him too. I know you can, because your heart, like mine, yearns to love and be loved with such passionate grace.

bump for Mark.

While you’re waiting for Mark to respond please allow me to post a thing or two.

RE: love. In my mind – “God is love” – means God is loving. God is the author and source of love. Love is an emotion, a feeling that God experiences. It is not some kind of force or power that rules or governs God.

RE: sin. As I see it, sin is any thought, word, or deed that violates the Law of God, the Word of God, or the holy example of the Son of God. I do not believe sinning is the opposite of love and righteousness. Instead, I believe sinful thoughts, words, and behaviour are perversions of lawful and loving thoughts, words, and behaviour.

RE: atonement. That the life and death of Jesus were both necessary to redeem mankind suggests to me there is more to the plan of salvation than meets the eye. The reasons Jesus had to suffer and die are many. But of all of them are mysterious and impossible to understand. For reasons that only make sense to God, right now, Jesus had to suffer and die in order to redeem us.

RE: vengeance and retribution. The punishment and destruction of the wicked in the lake of fire are also mysterious and impossible to understand. For reasons that only make sense to God, right now, Jesus will resurrect and punish and destroy the wicked in the lake of fire.

Tom, if you truly believe you understand why the life and death of Jesus was necessary to redeem us then you know more than the inspired authors knew. If Adam and Eve had died without having children the GC would still have ended in God's favor. If the Father had slain Jesus with His own hands the GC would have ended in God's favor. If Adam and Eve had refused to eat the forbidden fruit the GC would have ended in God’s favor.

The GC could have ended in God’s favor without mankind ever sinning and without Jesus ever having to die. This tells me that the life and death of Jesus were not necessary for God to win the GC, for God to safeguard eternity against future sinning. Why the life and death of Jesus were necessary to redeem us is truly a mystery. That He did is nothing less than amazing grace.

So you are saying that whatever God does is the right thing to do? Why then allow sin to enter our planet? Since He could have stoped it and won anyhow..

/Thomas

Tom, if you truly believe you understand why the life and death of Jesus was necessary to redeem us then you know more than the inspired authors knew.

By this remark, you seem to be of the assumption that the inspired writes didn't know why Jesus' life and death was necessary. Why do you think this? Have you read "It is Finished" in the Desire of Ages? This is an entire chapter dedicated to answering the significance of Jesus' death? Did Ellen White not know what she was writing about?

Paul wrote about the subject at length, and it was in his subconscience all the time; it permeates all of his writings. The same thing could be said of John. John wrote at great length of the reason for Jesus' life and death, much of it being quotes from Jesus himself.

The same thing could be said about other Scripture writers as well, such as Peter, but I picked just a couple to illustrate the point.

If Adam and Eve had died without having children the GC would still have ended in God's favor. If the Father had slain Jesus with His own hands the GC would have ended in God's favor. If Adam and Eve had refused to eat the forbidden fruit the GC would have ended in God’s favor.

The GC could have ended in God’s favor without mankind ever sinning and without Jesus ever having to die. This tells me that the life and death of Jesus were not necessary for God to win the GC, for God to safeguard eternity against future sinning. Why the life and death of Jesus were necessary to redeem us is truly a mystery. That He did is nothing less than amazing grace.

I have no idea why you are asseting the things you are. Are they based on anything? If so, what? Have you read the quotes I've been providing? I keep giving you explicit reasons from inspiration as to the meaning of Jesus' death, but they seem to have no impact. For example, I've posted this one several times:

Quote:

---

The death of Christ upon the cross made sure the destruction of him who has the power of death, who was the originator of sin. When Satan is destroyed, there will be none to tempt to evil; the atonement will never need to be repeated; and there will be no danger of another rebellion in the universe of God. That which alone can effectually restrain from sin in this world of darkness, will prevent sin in heaven. The significance of the death of Christ will be seen by saints and angels. Fallen men could not have a home in the paradise of God without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Shall we not then exalt the cross of Christ? The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God. It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of heaven are guarded from apostasy. Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan. Angelic perfection failed in heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss. All who wish for security in earth or heaven must look to the Lamb of God.(5SDABC 1132)

---

Isn't this quote clear as to the significance of Christ's death?

Thank you, Tom. But you seem to be equating the benefits of Jesus' life and death with why they were necessary. Do you agree that if Adam and Eve had successfully resisted Satan that the GC would have ended without us sinning and without the death of Jesus?

Thomas, I agree. We should be asking - Why? Why was the life and death of Jesus necessary to redeem us? Why is it the only way Jesus can pardon and save us? Why would Adam and Eve's victory have secured the universe against future sinning without the earthly life and death of Jesus?

After having asked these questions for years I have come to the conclusions that it is a mystery. Why Jesus couldn't save us some other way is a mystery to me. I accept it by faith. Those who wish to fault me for it are welcome to their opinions.