It's not possible for God to create a being with free will such that evil would not have have an impact on said being.



That evil does bad things to people with free will is not because God did anything special to make this happen, but because evil is, well, evil. Evil is contrary to God's character.

It's simply not possible for a being to act contrary to how God acts without bad things resulting. God is love. To act contrary to God's character is to act contrary to love. If one acts contrary to love, then how can something good result?

When you say that God created us such that evil has a bad effect upon us implies God could have created in some other way, so that evil would not have had a bad effect. How could God have done this?

From your quote:



This agrees with what I've been saying. This is the cause and effect.



This is not speaking to the fact that bad results come of evil, or that good results come from doing good, but that God causes us to abhor our own hardness of heart. What does God do this? Precisely because death is the inevitable result of sin. God has to rescue us from sin, or it will destroy us, so all His efforts our in this direction.



After Lucifer's resentment against God and Christ, God counseled with Lucifer and explained to him the truth regarding His Son. The Lucifer had received the knowledge of the truth. So "there remained no more sacrifice for sins." And yet, after this, God offered Lucifer pardon "again and again." Interesting, isn't it?



Again, all that's necessary is to look at the written record.



This is a description of willful sin.



Lucifer knew this wasn't true. The truth had already been explained to him. He willfully lied. That's a sin, a willful sin.



This quote is from earlier. Lucifer was given a warning. How did he respond to the warning? With a spirit of resistance. This is sin! He "allowed his jealousy of Christ to prevail." This is sin. If we allow our jealousy to prevail against us, this is sin.



Please tell me where Jesus said this. Where did Jesus say, "I can be compassionate to people, and forgive your sins, only because I will suffer the punishment for them." Where?

What I read is that when the woman caught in adultery was cast before Christ He said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.... Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." I have never read Him saying, "Because I will suffer the punishment for your sins I do not condemn you. God and sin no more."

When He forgave the paralytic, He said the same thing. "I forgive you. Don't sin, lest a worse thing come upon you." That was it. Nothing like "I forgive you because I am going to suffer the punishment for your sins."

Christ told many parables, healed many people, forgave people of their sin, but never, ever suggested that He was only able to do so because He would suffer the punishment of their sins, right?

If you disagree, please cite for me some example where Christ in any way qualified His forgiveness upon something He would yet do.



Jesus said:

Of course I know that, Tom. But what I’m saying is that no one would use the expression “arbitrary power” referring to individual discretion. “Arbitrary power” and “capricious power” are synonyms, but “arbitrary power” and “individual discretion” aren’t. If Ellen White wished to refer to individual discretion, she would have said, “This is not an act of individual discretion on the part of God,” and not “This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.”


The whole context of the passage is very clear, and it’s evident that God’s love decreed that bad results come from doing evil and good results come from doing good. The idea you are proposing makes no sense at all to me, so we'll have to disagree.


Tom, as I said, a willful sin happens when you understand the light and reject it. So, when Lucifer was finally convinced that he was in the wrong and that the divines statutes were just, and he even so refused to submit to God’s authority, this was a willful sin.
I’ve provided passages both from the Bible and from Ellen White to back up my position, and I think there’s little else I could say about this.


Well, I think we would return to Matt. 20:28, which we have been discussing from the beginning of this thread. It was only the price paid by the redeemer which allowed the debt of the slave to be canceled.

“A full, complete ransom has been paid by Jesus, by virtue of which the sinner is pardoned, and the justice of the law is maintained.” {AG 177.2}

“We were all debtors to divine justice, but we had nothing with which to pay the debt. Then the Son of God, who pitied us, paid the price of our redemption.” {CC 267.5}

“There was no power in the law to pardon its transgressor. Jesus alone could pay the sinner's debt.” {1SM 229.2}

“He paid the debt of man's transgression upon the cross of Calvary with his own precious blood.” {ST, January 20, 1890 par. 7}

"Justice demanded not merely that sin be pardoned; the death penalty must be met. The Saviour has met this demand. His broken body, his gushing blood, satisfied the claims of the law." {YI, April 16, 1903 par. 6}

Tom, I asked you to reply to just one point, which was exactly the one you didn’t reply to. John 16:25-27 only says that God is willing to forgive, which I had already pointed out. For your convenience, I’ll post again the points I want you to address:

"Arbitrary power" and "discretionary power" can be synonymous, just as "arbitrary power" and "capricious power" can be. The context determines the meaning.



I can say just as validly, "If Ellen White had wished to say 'capricious power,' she would have said, "This is not an act of capricious power," and not "This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God."

The context makes clear her meaning. If she were using "arbitrary" in the sense of "capricious," the context would bear that out. She would make arguments like "God will not undertake this action without due consideration. He will weigh all the appropriate factors" etc. But that's not the point she's making here. She's making the point that the destruction of the wicked is due to the actions the wicked have taken, as opposed to actions that God is undertaking. I don't see how this point can be missed. She repeated this thought in every sentence she wrote in these two paragraphs.



Here's what she wrote:



I'm not seeing your thought here. Also, I don't see the sense in your thought. First of all, love doesn't decree anything, so this is obviously a metaphor. She's saying that God took certain actions out of love. What actions does God take? "Everyone who has been free to condemn or discourage, will in his own experience be brought over the ground where he has caused others to pass; he will feel what they have suffered because of his want of sympathy and tenderness." He does this.

It makes no sense to say that God has decreed that bad results come from doing evil. That's like saying God has decreed that 2+2 shall equal 4, or that circles shall be round.

Bad results come from doing evil because of the nature of evil, just as 2 + 2 = 4 because of the nature of integers (or sets, if you prefer), or circles are round because of their nature. You can't have evil without bad results. Why? Because evil is based on selfishness, which is contrary to love. God is, by His nature, love. It is from love that all good things come. To choose instead the principle of self as opposed to the principle of love is to choose pain, misery and death.

There is no more need for God to decree this to be the case than for Him to decree that 2 + 2 = 4. God is *telling* us this is the case, not making it be the case. God has given us free will, and warns us of the consequences of using it contrary to the principles of love.



The passages are dealing with Lucifer's rebellion. But that is not, by a long shot, the only willful sin that Lucifer committed. The process downward was a long one, with many willful sins along the way, including envy, hatred, resentment, subterfuge, desire for power, lying, all sorts of things. I've provided the passages which spell these things out, so clearly that, as I've been asserting, you could give these passages to any non SDA and ask them if Lucifer was being described as willfully sinning, and the answer would be "yes."

Just the fact that EGW wrote the following should be enough to infer Lucifer had been willfully sinning:



This is long past the envy, hatred, and resentment which prompted Lucifer to start down this path. God offered Lucifer pardon again and again. For what? For willful sin, of course. What else could it have been for?

Let's consider one specific item. Lucifer was resentful because Christ was included with a meeting with God, and he wasn't. So it was explained to Lucifer why this happened, that Christ was His creator, the Son of God, not just another angel, like he was. This should have ended things right there, *long* before the passage I quoted above.

Now Lucifer understood what was being said. He understood the truth, that Christ was the Son of God, and His creator, and that he had no right to feel resentment. But he didn't let go of his resentment. Why not? Because he "allowed envy and hatred to prevail."

This is willful sin. This is just one example of one willful sin. There were many others, all down the path, and God offered, again and again, to pardon Lucifer.

Just because there was some thing which Lucifer was not convinced he was in error regarding does not mean that there were no willful sins he had committed that he was unaware of. Nothing EGW writes suggests this. Indeed, she flat out says that Lucifer was offered pardon again and again, which indicates that Lucifer had willfully sinned. God was willing to forgive him, if he would accept the conditions of repentance and submission.

In order for repentance to be possible, two things are necessary. One is a conviction that one has done wrong, and the other a willingness to accept and acknowledge that. God could not have offered Lucifer pardon for sins that it was not possible for Lucifer to repent of, which means that the sins for which God was offering him pardon had to be things Lucifer knew he had done that were wrong.



I asked where Jesus said "I can be compassionate to people, and forgive your sins, only because I will suffer the punishment for them." Let's look at what He actually said:



Jesus is saying here that if one wishes to be great, one should minister to others. He gives Himself as an example of being a servant in giving His life. He's not saying anything whatsoever about not being able to forgive or be compassionate unless He was punished first. Look at the preceding verses to get the context.



I didn't see the question about the bold part; not responding to this was an oversight. I was responding to the question regarding Jesus' intercession.

I don't understand how you understand John 16:25-27 as only saying that God is willing to forgive. Jesus said, "I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; for the Father Himself loves you." How do you get from this that Jesus meant "The Father is willing to forgive you"?

I understand the bold part in the quote you provided to mean the same as this:



I don't know if this answers your question or not, as you might ask what I think this means, but you might see it as an adequate answer, so I'll await your response. If you'd like me to elaborate me, I'd be happy to.

Tom, like Colin, I am no longer able to continue this dialog with you. I have clearly presented my case. You have clearly presented your case. Here's how we stand:

MM: By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. 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.

TE: Jesus did not have to die in order for God to have the legal right to pardon and save us. He possesses that right by virtue of the fact He is God. By His life and death Jesus revealed the self-sacrificing love of God. This revelation serves to save us from sin and sinning. If we do not frustrate the grace of God He will save us.

Maybe you can dialog with Scott. Hopefully he'll be joining the thread shortly.

Btw, how did you put together your summary of what I was saying? It's very good.

“Arbitrary power” is a well-known and widely-used term, and it has a negative connotation. Besides, in all the instances where Ellen White uses it (14 x), it has a negative connotation, often in the sense of “despotic power.”


You are not quoting the text in full. The whole passage revolves around the same fact – that what we do to others reacts upon ourselves. Besides, of course the phrase “It is the love of God toward us that has decreed this” can logically refer only to the preceding sentence, not to the succeeding sentence.


We are speaking of evil having bad results for the person who practices it. These bad results are basically a consequence of the way in which God created our minds to function, and of the laws of cause and effect He established.


I used just one passage related to Lucifer’s rebellion. All the other passages, both from the Bible and from the Ellen White, had nothing to do with Lucifer’s rebellion, and were used to define what willful sin is. Willful sin is the rejection of light after light has been received and understood. You seem to be disputing this definition, but provided no evidence to back up your opinion. You didn't quote a single passage using the word “willful.”


Did you really expect me to find a passage in the Bible with your exact words? The key word here is “ransom.” We’ve been discussing its meaning and, again, I provided a number of passages showing, not how I understand the concept, but how Ellen White understands the concept of the “ransom” or “debt” that Jesus paid. However, you did not comment about the passages.


What I want to know is why Jesus pleads His blood for the forgiveness of our sins, and why His blood is meritorious. I don’t see how these concepts can make sense under your view.

I'd love to jump in here, Tom, but I'm a little gun shy to jump into a conversation where Ellen seems to be the final authority and most of the discussion revolves around the exact meaning of her words.

Now if we want to use the bible and the bible only I have a lot to say!

scott

If one just reads the two paragraphs in question, it is very easy to see that her point is that the destruction of the wicked is not due to something God does to them but due to their own choice. She makes this point again and again, 7 times in the space of 2 paragraphs. Even if you skip altogether the sentence in question, it is still clear this is the point she is making, because she keeps repeating it.



This is what I wrote:



What I quoted is precisely the preceding sentence. The phrase "the love of God toward us has decreed this" is simply saying that God, because of His love for us, brings us over the ground mentioned. She is not arguing that God's love has decreed that good things come from good or that bad things come from evil.



Ok, let's try it this way. Imagine you are God. Explain to me how a sentient being can be created who can love and be loved and not experience bad things when he does evil.



I don't understand the point here. I referred to this:



"Determined" is willful. Allowing jealousy (let alone having jealousy in the first place) to prevail is sin. Instead of simply looking for certain specific words, if one considers the meaning of what is being said, it is easy to see that Lucifer was sinning, and using his will to do so.

Here's another example:



I'm just incredulous that one can read these things and not recognize them as describing willful sin. Let's consider a few points:

1.Lucifer was envious and jealous of Jesus Christ.
2.His heart was filled with envy and hatred.
3.He aspired to the height of God Himself.
4.He gloried in his loftiness.
5.Concealing his real purposes, he assembled the angelic host.
6.He introduced his subject, which was himself.

Look at the verbs used "aspired," "gloried," "concealing," "assembled," "introduced." This are all verbs which describe willful purpose. Being envious, hating Christ, wanting to be equal with God, glorying in one's loftiness, etc. are all examples of sin.

Regarding receiving light and understanding it, I carefully chose an example which illustrates this very point. Lucifer was jealous because He was not included with Christ to counsel with God. God explained to Lucifer why this was so, which was because He was not the Son of God, not the creator.

Lucifer understood this, as Lucifer was very intelligent, and there is nothing difficult to understand about this. But rather than let go of his jealousy, which was easily seen to be unfounded, he chose to remain resentful, and allowed hatred and envy to fill his heart. He had received light, but he rejected it. This willfully sinned, using your definition.



Again, the words are not important, but the ideas. Jesus never spoke of the idea that in order to forgive someone He had to be punished. He never spoke of the idea that God, in order to legally pardon, had to punish someone. Forget the words; look for the idea. Where can such an idea be found in Christ's life and teachings? In addition to never teaching these things, He never acted this way, and He was the perfect representation of His Father.



I didn't comment on the passages, because I asked you where Jesus taught the things you are suggesting. If I had asked you where Ellen White taught these things, it would have been appropriate to quote her, and I would have responded. But that's not what I asked.

It's a bit amusing in a way. I asked Colin the same question, and he quoted Paul. I ask you, and you quote Ellen White. But nobody quotes Jesus.

Going on to Jesus and His use of the word "ransom," you just now said that one should not look for certain specific words. I wholeheartedly agree. Let's look for meaning. What did Jesus say? Was He speaking of conditions necessary in order to receive pardon? No. He said, if you wish to be great, you will serve. Why did He say this? Because His disciples were seeing who could be the greatest. So He gave Himself as an example and said, "The Son of Man came not to serve, but to be served, and give His life a ransom for many."

If the disciples had not been striving to be the greatest, Christ would have had no occasion to speak the words He did. You're trying to be a whole theory based on a single word. You're not taking into account the context of the situation in which Jesus is speaking.



Ok, but what you cited was this:



I responded I see this as meaning the same thing as the DA passage I cited. Does that answer the question you asked? (which is what I think the passage you cited means).

It seems to me you are now asking a new question, since the passage you cited does not speak directly to the things you are now asking about.

In regards to what you are now asking, I'm not understanding what it is you think happens. Do you think Jesus literally pleads His blood to God so that God will forgive us? If so, why would this be? It seems to indicate that God needs to be reminded of what Christ did, or that God is unwilling to forgive us, so Christ has to convince Him.

If it is not literal, then what does it mean?

Since you asked me first, I'll give a brief answer, which I can elaborate on. God forgives us not on the basis of our goodness, but on the basis of His grace, which comes to us through Christ.

Scott, please go ahead and speak. The participants have been primarily Colin, myself, MM, Rosangela. Colin is pretty much all Scripture in his participation, so I'm sure he'd especially welcome any Scripturally based presentation. Rosangela has also had protracted conversations just using Scripture on a number of threads.

OK. God, because of His love for us, brings us over the ground mentioned. Which is what?
Also experiencing condemnation and discouragement – IOW, “Whatever we give, we shall receive again. ... And evil imparted also returns again” (her words at the beginning of the quote).


Tom, when God created us, He deliberately put within our soul certain characteristics. For instance, He could have created us with the capacity to love other human beings and be loved by them, but having no need to love Him (a Superior Being) and be loved by Him. But He didn’t do so. He put a need for Him within us.
In the same way, He could have created us in such a way that our feelings would be under the command of our will, so that we could command our hearts to not suffer. But He didn’t do that.
So, God chose the way in which both our bodies and our minds should work.


At this point Lucifer still thought he was right and God was wrong. He hadn’t been convinced he was in error. It’s true he was resisting light, but he hadn’t yet had a full understanding of that light. God is a God of mercy and no one will be held accountable for a light he hasn’t apprehended. He had to make an intelligent decision as to whether he would submit to God or not, and he was still undecided, for “he had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God” (PP 39).

When did his sin happen?

“Evil originated with the rebellion of Lucifer. It was brought into heaven when he refused allegiance to God's law. Satan was the first lawbreaker.” {RH, June 4, 1901 par. 3}


As if Paul and Ellen White taught something different from Jesus! It’s this that is amusing. If they taught, then they weren’t inspired by Jesus.


Let’s slightly change what Jesus said. "The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and give His life to save the world." Was Jesus speaking about salvation? No. He was speaking about His attitude of service. Does this mean He did not come to save the world, and that if I say that He did I’m disregarding the context? How valid is this argument?

How was He serving? By giving His life as a ransom. What is a ransom? It’s the price paid to cancel the debt of a slave and free him. Why did Jesus use this unusual word? Because He wanted to convey the idea that we had a debt we couldn’t pay and He came here to pay this debt with His own life. The way you understand what this debt was and how He paid it with His life is what we are discussing. In support of my/Colin’s/MM’s interpretation we are quoting the words of Paul and of Ellen White. Who are you quoting in support of yours?


Yes, it does. I asked why Jesus pleads His blood for the forgiveness of sin, and the passage I quoted said,

“Jesus is the only hope of the soul. ... The moment the sinner lays hold of Christ by faith, his sins are no longer upon him. Christ stands in the sinner's place, and declares, ‘I have borne his guilt, I have been punished for his transgressions, I have taken his sins, and put My righteousness upon him.’” {PrT, January 30, 1890 par. 6}

This, to me, is the same thing.


Why does Christ speak to His Father about His death? Did God grant His grace because Christ died? This does not make sense under your view. What then do you mean?