Our heavenly Fatehr treated Jesus on the cross like a sinner, like someone who committed all the sins of the world. The fact humans and evil angels were tormenting Him paled in comparison.

THe death of Jesus was required for more reasons than merely to motivate us to love and obey God. It was also required to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. The honor of God's law must be served. The law requires death for sin. Sinners cannot be merely pardoned. Death must occur in consequence of man's sin. Jesus paid our sin debt of death to satisfy the law, to uphold the integrity of the law, to preserve law and justice.

1SM 340
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 340.1}

RH 3-3-1874
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 of superior value to the law of God. 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, "Ye shall 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. {RH, March 3, 1874 par. 1}

What do you mean by this? You've said elsewhere that Christ's death was unlike the death of sinners, which would imply that God did *not* treat Christ like a sinner, wouldn't it?



Wow! What angels and men were doing to Christ pale in comparison to what God was doing to Him? Wow! Sort of makes God seem like a monster, doesn't it? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here(?). I certainly hope so).



Yes, I said that. (except I didn't use the phrase "required for," but I communicated the idea that Jesus' death accomplished much more than motivate us to love and obey God. For one thing, it won the Great Controversy; that's an important thing).



This isn't really communicating anything to me. It just sounds like familiar phrases. Could you say the same thing in other words? For example, the law doesn't require anything that God doesn't require, does it? That is, the law has no independent existence apart from God. So couldn't you just say that God requires death for sin? That wouldn't mean anything different, would it? So "Jesus paid our sin debt of death to satisfy the law" means "Jesus paid our sin debt of death to satisfy God," doesn't it?


P.S.

And aren't we back to the same question about Lucifer? If Eve's sin required Christ's death, then Lucifer's sins should have as well. Look at what Eve did; she ate an apple, because she was deceived. You claim that Lucifer did not willfully sin because he didn't know what he was doing was wrong (in spite of the fact that evidence indicates he did know; for example, he disguised his true intentions, which indicates he knew he was doing wrong), but there is no doubt that Eve did not know what she was doing was wrong. In the words of Paul, she was deceived. Yet her sin resulted in the death of Christ. That's correct, isn't it? So why hers, but not Lucifer's?

You can't say Lucifer didn't sin because, in addition to EGW's calling Lucifer's actions "evil," "iniquity," and "transgression," and in addition to the description itself being obviously sin, and in addition to the fact she wrote that God offered Lucifer pardon "again and again," and in addition to the fact that repentance was a required condition for that pardon, she *also* stated that Lucifer was given the opportunity to "confess his sin." Now if he was given the opportunity to "confess his sin," he obviously had sin to confess.

Since he had the opportunity to confess it, at least that sin Lucifer could have been pardoned for. Yet Christ had not died. How is this possible?

Jesus was not treated like a sinner in the lake of fire. He was treated like a sinner on the cross. He "felt" the wrath and displeasure of God. This was more devastating to Jesus than the treatment He received from men and evil angels. There is nothing monstrous about it.

God established the law to be an unbiased advocate of law and justice. Yes, it is a transcript of His character. But He is obligated to obey it the same as us. Which is not a problem for Him. The law demands death for sin. God is obligated to abide by this law. He cannot pardon us without death and hope to maintain law and order.

The difference between Lucifer and Eve should be obvious. She was an inexperienced underling, he was the highest ranking covering cherub. She was barely familiar with the law of God, he knew the law and character of God perfectly. She was instructed concerning sin and rebellion, he was totally unfamiliar with sin adn rebellion. She was deceived into sinning, he willfully chose to live a life of sin kicking against a pricking conscience.

Lucifer's behavior was not labeled "sin" until the moment he chose to pursue his course beyond being convicted otherwise. It was a perfectly sinless being who experimented with the new and strange thoughts and feelings that were on his mind. His tactics and manners were designed to understand his new and strange thoughs and feelings. He was not guilty of sinning until the moment he chose to pursue his course further after being convinced to do so would be sinful.

If you prefer "devastating" that's fine. It is your position that God's treatment of Jesus was so devastating to Jesus that the tormenting of Him by evil angels and men pales in comparison. It's nothing less than tragic that you have this view of God.

God is like Jesus Christ. Where did Jesus Christ ever treat anybody in the manner you are suggesting God treated Christ?

In reality, God suffered with Christ. God was crucified with Christ. God left heaven, shrouding His glory, to be close to Jesus in His hour of suffering. God was never closer to Jesus than at His death.




God established the law to be an unbiased advocate of law? That sounds pretty biased!



Not as an arbitrary requirement. It's a statement of fact that sin results in death, not an arbitrarily imposed penalty.



How can God's law be greater than He is? God is not obligated to anything or anybody. God is not a debtor.



This is true.



Right. In addition, Lucifer was vastly more intelligent, and dwelt in the very presence of God, all of which brings out that Lucifer was much guiltier for his actions than Eve. Yet God was willing to pardon Lucifer.



You think Eve was more familiar with sin and rebellion than Lucifer?!

Lucifer was instructed concerning sin and rebellion as well, by Christ personally, and was in much better position to understand the warning God was giving to him than Eve. In fact, Lucifer did understand the warning, but he chose to disregard it. Lucifer was not deceived. He sinned willingly.



Right! Lucifer's sin was willful. He willfully rejected the pardon that God kept offering him "again and again." He chose to kick against his pricking conscience.



When Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess his sin, he had sin to confess, right? So there's a chronology:

a)Lucifer sins.
b)Lucifer is given the opportunity to confess his sin, in which case he would have been pardoned and restored to his position as covering cherub.
c)Lucifer refuses to confess, and continues in rebellion.

However you want to consider this period of sin to consist of, there's no doubt it is more serious than what Eve did, correct? I suppose I should ask you what you think the sin was that Lucifer was given the chance to confess was.





Satan was not innocent in his behavior. He was not offered pardon "again and again" because he was acting innocently. He was offered pardon because God is merciful.

It's interesting to note that your ideas lead you to defend Satan's actions as simply experimenting with strange thoughts and feelings.

You have God guilty of treating His Son so devastatingly that the tormenting of evil angels and men pales in comparison, but Lucifer innocent of his actions, which were simply experiments with strange thoughts and feelings.

Have you never read where Jesus' physical suffering paled in comparison to the mental anguish He felt on the cross? What was the source of such suffering? It was the wrath and displeasure of God!

Initially Lucifer did not understand sin and rebellion. It was foreign and unknown. The methods and tactics he used to explore his new and strange thoughts and feelings were designed to unmask a mystery. God gave him the freedom to figure it out.

The fact He was willing to pardon and reinstate him on condition of repentance and submission is evidence he had not violated any laws. He was not guilty of sinning. His behaviour was within the rules of - Come now, let us reason together.

He was not guilty of sinning until the moment he was convinced his conclusions about God were wrong and he chose to pursue his course at all hazards.

No, that's not correct. The source was Christ's *sense* of God's displeasure. Every place where Ellen White speaks of this you will see this is what she says. God was *never* displeased with His Son.



This is a made up idea of yours. There's not a shred of evidence to support this idea. Nowhere does she write that Lucifer was "exploring" his new and strange thoughts and feelings.

Here's what she says:





What was Lucifer's "real purpose," a purpose he was "concealing" under "an appearance of reverence for God"? It was self-exaltation.

His represented himself as desiring to revere God and not wanting to exalt himself when his real purpose was to exalt himself. He sought to win homage for himself, resorting to "lying representation" in order to do so.

To excuse this as exploring new and strange thoughts is unconscionable.



Like if a governor of a state is willing to pardon someone? If the governor of your state offers to pardon someone, then that is evidence that the person being pardoned didn't violate any laws?

You're saying things the opposite of which are true. That pardon was offered, and repentance required, is, of course, evidence that sin had been committed. Anyone can see that.

God offered to restore Lucifer if he confessed his sin, correct? So even if you want to excuse Lucifer's actions cited above of seeking to exalt himself, hiding his real purpose under a guise of reverence for God as innocent experimentations, there is still the fact that Lucifer committed sin which he was given the opportunity to confess.

Regardless of what you limit this sin to, it's still there. We have.

a)Lucifer committed sin (the sin he was given the opportunity to confess).
b)Lucifer was given the opportunity to confess that sin.
c)Had he done so, he would have been restored to his position.

Here is what Sister White wrote about Jesus' experience on the cross:


Jesus "sensed" His Father wrath and displeasure for the simple reason He became sin itself for us. The sins of the world were laid upon Him. He was counted as the one who committed them. He suffered the curse of the law, the penalty of death. He endured judicial punishment.

In the keenest sense He felt the wrath of God because of iniquity. It filled His soul with consternation. God did not pretend to pour out His wrath upon Jesus. It was real. Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race. The cup He drank was bitter beyond belief.

Here is what Sister White wrote about Lucifer:


This description confirms what I posted above.

You're just repeating familiar phrases. There's no meaning here.

Christ's sensed His Father's wrath because sin causes us to believe things about God that aren't true. This is precisely what happened to Adam and Eve. They ran and hid from God, but God wasn't angry at them, as He wasn't angry at Christ.

He left heaven to be with Christ. He loved His Son, and suffered with Him. He did nothing bad to Christ.



This is true.



This is true too. God didn't pretend to pour out His wrath upon Christ, nor pour it out upon Christ at all. As Waggoner pointed out.



And this is true. Nowhere in Scripture suggests this, and no Scriptural texts have been suggested. Waggoner, of whom Ellen White wrote, "he can teach righteousness by faith better than I can" is correct.



Here you're contradicting yourself, because you say Christ's death was not like the death of the wicked at the end of time.

Anyway, it's true that Christ will feel the anguish the wicked will feel, and the reason for this anguish is because of sin, not because of God.

Sin is the enemy, not God. God doesn't change. He is love personified, forgiveness personified. But sin causes us to view God in ways He is not.

God is like Jesus Christ. When Christ pleaded "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," He was revealing the character of God. God forgives freely. Just as Christ needed no payment in order to forgive the paralytic, nor the woman caught in adultery, nor the wretches torturing him, neither does God, whose character Christ was revealing, need to be bought off in order to pardon us.

No, not really. It agrees with what I said. It says that Lucifer became convinced that he had done wrong, which is what I was saying. You said that he was experimenting with strange feelings and thoughts, but she says he did wrong, which is what I said.