It was love for sinners that led Christ to pay the price of redemption. {PK 692.2}

God suffered with His Son. In the agony of Gethsemane, the death of Calvary, the heart of Infinite Love paid the price of our redemption. {SC 13.2}

He gave Himself for our sins, and to every soul He freely offers the blood-bought pardon. {COL 244.3}

The Lord has paid the price of His own blood for the salvation of the world. {FE 527.1}

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. {RC 78.4}

And having with His own blood paid the price of redemption, having passed through man's experience, having in man's behalf met and conquered temptation, having, though Himself sinless, borne the shame and guilt and burden of sin, He becomes man's Advocate and Intercessor. {7BC 926.3}

You are God's employed servants, delegated to build up His kingdom in the earth, and you are to do your part in saving the souls for whom Christ has paid the price of His own blood. {CSW 121.1}

The glorious Redeemer of a lost world was suffering the penalty of man's transgression of the Father's law. He was about to ransom His people with His own blood. He was paying the just claims of God's holy law. This was the means through which an end was to be finally made of sin and Satan, and his host to be vanquished. {2T 208.2}

He is dying for them; He is paying an infinite price for every one of them. He bears the penalty of man's sins without a murmur. {LHU 233.2}

The wonderful symbol of the living bird dipped in the blood of the bird slain and then set free to its joyous life, is to us the symbol of the atonement. There were death and life blended, presenting to the searcher for truth the hidden treasure, the union of the pardoning blood with the resurrection and life of our Redeemer. The bird slain was over living water; that flowing stream was a symbol of the ever flowing, ever cleansing efficacy of the blood of Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, the fountain that was open for Judah and Jerusalem, wherein they may wash and be clean from every stain of sin. We are to have free access to the atoning blood of Christ. {1BC 1111.4}

This is represented as the pardoning blood, inseparably connected with the resurrection and life of our Redeemer, illustrated by the ever-flowing stream that proceeds from the throne of God, the water of the river of life (Letter 87, 1894). {7BC 948.1}

With His own blood He paid the penalty for all wrongdoers. (RH Sept. 29, 1896).

The penalty for breaking the law of God is proportionate to the price paid to redeem its transgressors. {FLB 354.5}

Precious is the price paid for our redemption--the blood of the only begotten Son of God. Christ was tried by the sharp proving of affliction. His human nature was tried to the uttermost. He bore the death penalty of man's transgression. He became the sinner's substitute and surety. {TDG 202.4}

Prayer is not an expiation for sin. It is not a penance. We need not come to God as condemned criminals, for Christ has paid the penalty of our transgression. He has made an atonement for us. His blood cleanses from sin. {HP 71.2}

In His own body He paid the penalty of that on which the power of Satan over humanity is founded--sin (YI June 28, 1900). {7BC 924.5}

Here is the answer:

Through disobedience Adam fell. The law of God had been broken. The divine government had been dishonored, and justice demanded that the penalty of transgression be paid. To save the race from eternal death, the Son of God volunteered to bear the punishment of disobedience. Only by the humiliation of the Prince of heaven could the dishonor be removed, justice be satisfied, and man be restored to that which he had forfeited by disobedience. There was no other way. {1SM 308.1, 2}

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}

Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment. {PP 358.2}

Christ satisfied the demands of the law in His human nature. He bore the curse of the law for the sinner, made an atonement for him, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." {FW 93.3}

By faith in His merits I am free from the condemnation of the law. He clothes me with His righteousness, which answers all the demands of the law. {NL 27.2}

He was the surety for man, the ambassador for God--the surety for man to satisfy by His righteousness in man's behalf the demands of the law, and the representative of God to make manifest His character to a fallen race. {1SM 257.2}

The active obedience of Christ clothes the believing sinner with the righteousness that meets the demands of the law. {SD 240.4}

His faith may unite him in his weakness to Christ, the source of divine strength, and through the merits of Christ he may find the approval of God, because Christ has satisfied the demands of the law, and He imputes His righteousness to the penitent, believing soul. {TMK 96.3}

Here's something from Fifield:



The last paragraph gets to the key point.

Here's a statement from Ellen White which brings out the same point:



Justice would not be served, the demands of the law would not be met, had a pardon been effected which simply led to sin being perpetuated. Without the death of Christ, sin would not have come to an end.

That this is not an arbitrary requirement, something which God needed, is evident from the fact that God offered to pardon Lucifer "again and again." Had the death of Christ been necessary for God, in order for Him to legally pardon, then it would have been necessary in order for Him to pardon Lucifer as well.

Fifield's explanation makes perfect sense to me, and seems to be in harmony with Ellen White's quote above, which also makes sense to me. We see that pardon, without the death of Christ, was not enough because it would have led to sin being perpetuated. This would neither have met the demands of the law, nor satisfied justice.

TE: We see that pardon, without the death of Christ, was not enough because it would have led to sin being perpetuated. This would neither have met the demands of the law, nor satisfied justice.

MM: Law and justice demand not merely pardon for sinning or cessation of sinning; it demands death for the sins already committed. Pardon and not sinning any more do not meet the demands of the law or satisfy justice. Law and justice were violated. Someone must die in consequence of the sins committed.

"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 aplan 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." And the flowing of the blood from the victim would also signify an atonement. There was no virtue in the blood of animals; but the shedding of the blood of beasts was to point forward to a Redeemer who would one day come to the world and die for the sins of men. And thus Christ would fully vindicate His Father's law. {Con 21.3}

I can't see how what you're suggesting can be right, MM, because if this were the case, then how could Ellen White have written that God offered Lucifer pardon "again and again"? It seems to me that God would have been just as constrained to insist upon Christ's death for Lucifer as for man, if what you're suggesting here were true.

Lucifer had sinned, and was given the opportunity to confess his sin. Had he confessed his sin, he would have been restored to his position, and forgiven. There would have been no death.

It is sin that results in death. Ellen White points out that without the death of Christ, sin would have been perpetuated. This means that man would have inevitably died. The only way for man to be saved was for Christ to die. Christ suffered the death that was ours that we might live His life. That's it in a nutshell. This is substitutionary atonement. I see no need to go beyond this simple and eloquent statement of hers. I see her in no place suggesting that Christ died in order to give God the legal right to pardon us.

I would point you to Fifield's comments in the post just above yours that I am responding to here. I think he hit the nail on the head.

Where is there anything here that says that Christ had to die in order for God to have the legal right to pardon us? All these quotes speak of the price that Christ paid. For example:



What was the price paid for? So that God could have the legal right to forgive us? No, it was the "price of our redemption."

Romans Chapter 3
"23": For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
"24": Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
"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;
"26": To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


This text makes it quite clear that the Cross is a crucial part of God being able to forgive sinners while remaining just in doing so. Without the propitiating sacrifice of Christ, God's forgiveness could accomplish nothing more than an eternal perpetuation of sin.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Dave. I agree with the words that you wrote. Here is what I would mean by your words:

If God merely pardoned sin without doing something to cause sin to stop, then that would not be just. Without the death of Christ, man would have just kept sinning, resulting in the perpetuation of sin.

As Fifield said:



This is what I understand Paul to be saying as well.

What Paul is saying is that through the Cross, God has the legal right to forgive us of our sins. Without the Cross, the legal right would have to have been achieved though altering the law which would be altering His character of divine love.

Regarding the situation as it pertained to Lucifer in heaven, we are not necessarily given all the details of the provision God offered to Satan or the exact nature of his rejection of that provision. What is certain, though, is that Satan had the nature of God's law explained to him and when he yet rebelled, his sin had matured, and there was no remedy for him.

On the first question regarding what Paul said, he didn't say that God has the legal right to forgive us our sins through the cross. This idea didn't even exist at the time Paul wrote. It wasn't until many, many centuries later that this idea was first articulated.

That Paul did not have this idea can be seen in a couple of ways. First of all, Paul was not inventing a new theology. He was explaining the meaning of Christ's death according to the sacrificial system already in place, according to how sacrifice was understood. There is no contemporaneous evidence that any civilization at the time of Paul, including the Hebrews, had the idea that sacrifice was for the purpose of the Deity obtaining a legal right to forgive. This isn't a Jewish idea.

Secondly, the Eastern Orthodox church does not have this idea of the atonement. Why not? Because they split off from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm, who first enunciated the precursor to this idea. Here's a web site that has an interesting article on this: http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/whats-at-stake-in-the-atonement/

Has this idea been in existence at the time Paul wrote, it would have become a part of the patristic beliefs. But this idea of Christ's death is not mentioned in the early creeds or writings of the fathers.

Another point is that, as stated above, Paul did not create new theology, but explicated the theology of Jesus Christ. What Paul writes on the meaning of the death of Christ, one should be able to find in the life and teachings of Jesus. But Jesus new taught that God did not have the legal right to forgive us, and that only His death would give God that right.

Finally, in regards to Paul, Paul does not say that Christ's death gave God the legal right for forgive us. He says that God set Christ forth as a, literally, "mercy seat," for our sins, to declare (or manifest) His righteousness (or justice) that He might be just and the justifier of the believer in Jesus Christ.

In regards to Lucifer, we are given a lot of details, quite a number of pages. We are told specifically what the conditions of the offer of pardon were: repentance and submission. We are told that Lucifer was offered pardon "again and again." We know, in actual fact, that God made this offer many times, and that Christ did not die in order for God to be able to make the offer. This proves that Christ's death is not necessary in order to provide a legal right for God to pardon, as if this were the case, God couldn't have offered to pardon Lucifer.

I agree with the content of your last sentence, but would say that it is no more certain than the fact that Lucifer was offered pardon again and again without Christ's having had to die in order to give God the legal right to do so, since we have as much information on the latter as we do on the former.