The title of the topic is "The Meaning of His Death."



I strongly disagree with this. I'll come back to why.



I've responded. I've done so in two ways. The first is I explained what I believed it means to say that justice requires that Christ die. The second way is I explained why it cannot be the case that EGW taught that Christ's death was necessary in order for God to be able to legally pardon.

I can't think of any quote that these two points wouldn't adequately answer.

Back to your statement that the revelation of God is the last part of the Gospel. I'll discuss this in a separate post.

The fact that Christ's death wasn't necessary in order for God to pardon Lucifer - either relationally or legally - doesn't mean that there was no need for Lucifer's pardon to be also legal.

"Both he and his followers wept, and implored to be taken back into the favor of God. But their sin--their hatred, their envy and jealousy--had been so great that God could not blot it out. It must remain to receive its final punishment." {EW 146.1}

Lucifer's sin was (legally) registered and it had to be (legally) blotted out - or else receive its final punishment. This is legal language, not relational language. So Lucifer's pardon also had a legal aspect.

I disagree with this, as I believe it depicts a misunderstanding of what our problem really is, and the real issues of the Great Controversy.



1.He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself.
2.Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation.
3.With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator.
4.Thus he deceived angels and men.
5.That the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken.
6.This could not be done by force.
7.The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.
8.Only by love is love awakened.
9.To know God is to love Him.
10.His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan.

This to me outlines the Gospel beautifully. The last point is the key, and the previous points explain why.



This points out that "the whole purpose of his own mission on earth" was "to set men right through the revelation of God." "Whole purpose" is rather inclusive. It means that this is the sum and substance of what Christ was about. This corresponds to point 10 above: His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan.

Thus the idea that revealing God is the last part of the Gospel cannot be correct. That God is like Jesus Christ is the heart and soul of the Gospel. The revelation of God was not the "last part" of Christ's mission, but the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission. What was this to accomplish? To "set men right with God."

Whatever legal aspects we wish to consider must be understood in the context of what was happening in the Great Controversy. Satan was seeking to win homage to himself by misrepresenting God's character as being like his own. This is how he wins converts, even today. How God counters this is by manifesting His true character through Jesus Christ.

I don't know why you're making this point. My point was that God offered Lucifer pardon, which surely would have been a legal pardon, without Christ's dying. If Christ's death were necessary in order for God to legally pardon, then Christ would have had to have died in order for God to legally pardon Lucifer. But Christ didn't die, while God offered Lucifer a legal pardon. Therefore it's not necessary for Christ to die in order for God to offer legal pardons.

I never said that the pardon offered by God to Lucifer was not legal.



The legal aspect is simply recognizing the reality of the situation. If it were possible for Lucifer and his followers to repent, then God would have forgiven them. Of course! How could He not? This is His nature. He would have loved to have had Lucifer back, and his followers. He loved them as dear children.

But this wasn't possible. Not because of a legality, but because of their heart. God knew that they were not repentant, which was born out by their actions. Just after what you quoted, we read:



Satan hated God. If his issue were a legal one, it could be easily solved by way of pardon. But his issue was one of heart and mind. Satan had gone past the point of no return. He could not be healed. And so God could not blot out his sin.

The blotting out of sin is simply a recognition of the reality of a lack of sin in one's character. Sin can only be blotted out in heaven if it's been blotted out in the heart. Conversely, if sin is blotted out in the heart, it is blotted out in heaven.

There was no penalty of death before a willfull transgression had been committed. When Lucifer and his followers transgressed the law willfully, "their hatred, their envy and jealousy--[became] so great that God could not blot it out."

To sin willfully is to reject the law.

"Every willful transgression is an act of rebellion against its Author. Every one who assumes this attitude, is by his practice saying to the people, 'The requirements of God are exacting and severe, a yoke of bondage. Let us break this yoke from off our necks, and be at liberty.'" {ST, January 19, 1882 par. 13}

"After all this, if man refuses to respond to the great sacrifice which has been made to ennoble and to save him, if he obstinately chooses the path of sin, will the great Judge of all the earth excuse the willful transgression of his holy law?" {ST, January 6, 1881 par. 16}

"The least deviation from that law, by neglect, or willful transgression, is sin, and every sin exposes the sinner to the wrath of God." {ST, March 3, 1881 par. 9}

Tom, you've answered our points by repeating your own points, which hasn't dealt with our points at all - for you have avoided our points. Since you won't acccept the rest of the gospel teaching which we have presented to you, as is in the lesson Quarterly for this topic, I have nothing more to say that I can think of. Except,...

God's justice is rooted in his most essential characteristic: his holiness, which abhors and condemns sin, and whose law requires and recognises his Son's substitution of our death for us to be pardoned of that death sentence. We are pardoned because Christ legally suffered the death due us, without whose death we COULD NOT be pardoned. God's holiness both demands and supplies our death, by his Son, and only thereby can we be freed from our natures' enmity to God, so that we might then learn to love him as he first loved us. Christ's death allowed God to pardon us. It's implied by God's holiness and his law. Without it there can be no rebirth, either...

Incidentally: Lucifer sinned in God's presence and that is unpardonable, as a matter of principle, not just a corrupt attitude on Satan's part.

I fear for you, brother.

If instead of thinking of things in terms of a penalty but in terms of results of certain actions, it would be easier to understand things. The problem is that sin leads to death. Not because God decided that sin should have a penalty, but because it does.

For example, if you smoke, you may get cancer. Not because God has decreed that smokers should get cancer as a penalty, but because smoking causes damage to your body.

Similarly sin spiritually damages us. It causes us to be out of harmony with God. It doesn't change God in any way, but it changes us. This change is clearly seen in Adam and Eve.

After Adam and Eve sinned, they ran from God. Why? Because they felt ashamed and afraid. Sin had changed the way they viewed God, profoundly so.

Regarding Satan, there were a number of steps in his fall, each more serious than the previous one, finally getting to the point to where he could no longer be healed. Satan reached the point to where he lost any desire or ability to be restored to harmony with God. His hatred of God became final and lethal.

At first Satan felt slighted because God invited Christ in close counsel and he was not invited. It is likely he honestly did not understand that Christ was by nature superior to himself, but this was explained to him. Yet, even after this, he continued obstinately, for a long time.

He decided to win converts to his side. He developed a plan to do so. His plan was to misrepresent God's character in order to win converts to his side.

He followed a downward slide which included resentment, resitence, rejection, and as a final step rebellion. In no way was he innocent of willfully sinning until the final step of rebellion.



God offered over and over again to pardon Lucifer of his sin. He gave him the chance to confess his sin before being banished from heaven.



If we replace sin with "willfully rejected the law" we get "Before he was sentenced to banishment from Heaven, ..., he was granted an opportunity to confess his willfully rejection of the law." Had he done so, he would have been forgiven and restored to his position. Before reaching this point, God had long been working with Satan, and had offered him pardon "again and again."

All of this is without Christ having died. Thus it is very clear that God is able to offer legal pardons without Christ's having to die.



In order to be saved from sin, we must be healed of our rebellious spirit. This could only be done by Christ's revelation of God. The whole purpose of Christ's mission was "the revelation of God" in order to heal us of things like rebellion.



If a person insists upon retaining a rebellious spirit, how could God forgive him? Even if He did, what good would it do? Without repentance and submission, the rebel would simply continue in rebellion, endangering all in his path, including himself.



The wrath of God is giving a person over to the result of their choice. For example, in Romans 1 we read:



Here we see the wrath of God revealed. God "gave them over" to their desires.

"Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone:" (Hosea 4:17)

This is the wrath of God. Yes, sin exposes us to this, because the more we resist the goodness of God which leads us to repentance, the more we harden our hearts, the closer we come to reaching the point that Satan reached, the point of no return, to where we can no longer be healed, and God has no choice but to "give us up."

If we have a loved one who engages in drugs, it is not surprising that we might hate drugs. Why? Because we know of the damage it can cause our loved ones. Similarly, God abhors and condemns sin, not for reasons based on self, but because of the harm it does to His loved ones. God is love, and wants only the best for His children. He has a righteous indignation, such as Christ displayed, against those who would harm them.

The requirements of His law are not arbitrary, but are simply a recognition of reality. The law is a transcript of God's character, which was fully and beautifully revealed by Christ. God is no more holy than Christ was, and His justice no more severe than Christ's. If we wish to see what the law demands in order for God to be able to forgive, we have merely to see how Christ forgave. What did Christ require in order to forgive the paralytic?



Where did Christ teach this?



The law is simply a transcript of God's character. What in God's holiness implies He can't forgive without violence? Where in Christ's character do we see such an idea?



It was unpardonable in the sense that God was unable to heal him from what he had done, but out of spite on God's part. God would have been willing to pardon him, and, indeed, offered to pardon him "again and again." God gave Satan the opportunity to confess his sin before being banished from heaven, so how can you say it was unpardonable? Everything that God did demonstrates clearly that God was willing to pardon Satan. The only reason Satan was not pardoned is that he didn't want to be.

Gospel teaching only from Jesus' utterances? That's wrong: the whole Bible teaches the Gospel, and the whole Bible teaches this, from Moses to Paul to Jesus himself, as well as the SOP. We have presented it to you, but you insist that doesn't fit: that's your problem, not ours, since we include your p.o.v. on the gospel, but you don't allow ours - which is as and more important, leaving you tenuously close to the fringe of faith.

"Ransom" is your problem, not mine, not for the rest of us, as it is presented in this Sabbath School lesson. You hold to logic more than reality, losing sight of the law in the process. We are under the curse of the law by nature and choice, and saved by grace with Christ's legally secured pardon from that curse: consider MM new, private forum thread on this issue,"What does this mean?" Sort it, for we can't do it for you.

We try to pray for each other.

Above all, one would think that Jesus would explain the meaning of His death. You have stated the following:



I've repeatedly asked for proof that Jesus Christ taught this, and all you've mentioned is this:



There's nothing in this verse that mentions anything at all about being pardoned because Christ legally suffered the death due to us. Nothing. Surely you should be able to see this. It simply says Christ gave His life as a ransom. Now what does this mean?

There are a couple of ways one could go about this. One would be to consider what it would have meant to those who heard Jesus speak. If one researches this, one will find that there is no chance that anyone hearing Christ's words would have understood it as meaning what you are claiming.

Another way would be to consider the other teachings of Jesus Christ. An established principle is that controverted statements should be interpreted in the light of ones which aren't. What did Jesus teach elsewhere? Did He teach anything anywhere about needing to die in order to obtain a legal pardon? If so, where?

Another way one could go about things is to consider the problem that had to be solved, and how the death of Christ did this. For example:

1.He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself.
2.Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation.
3.With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator.
4.Thus he deceived angels and men.
5.That the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken.
6.This could not be done by force.
7.The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.
8.Only by love is love awakened.
9.To know God is to love Him.
10.His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan.

Taking a look at this we see what the problem was, what needed to be done, and how Christ's death fits into this.

If we see Christ's death as necessary to enable God to pardon us, one wonders why. To say that it is because God's holiness demands is simply to repeat the question. Why? What bad thing would happen if God forgave sin without a death taking place? In the case of Lucifer, we see that God was willing to do exactly that. If Lucifer had accepted God's offer, would something bad have resulted, even though Christ had not died?

Another way of going about things would be to consider what are the ramifications of the theory we are espousing. Objections which have raised against this theory is that it doesn't have God and Christ working in concert. For example:



We see both God and Christ working together to do that which was necessary to save man from sin, regardless of the cost.