This conversation speaks of “grace” as if it were a noun, but it is an active verb or adjective. Grace is God’s character in action. God doesn’t grant grace, but acts like His graceful self. Grace is a description of God in action. It is His motive for all of His actions. God is gracious and therefore when we see Him move we are awestruck with His grace. Because of His outrageous love, forgiveness, and efforts to save all of His lost children we see Him act and all we can say is, “What Grace!”

Also God doesn’t grant grace to some and withhold it from others. We are all exposed to God’s gracefulness every day.

scott

Scott, where in Scripture does it clearly explain why Jesus had to die, what His death accomplishes?

The reason I said "ground mentioned" was because it was easier than typing "the ground where he has caused others to pass" (but this didn't work, since I had to type it anyway. )



Because of grace, the cause and effect of one's actions may not be apparent. However, this cause and effect must be seen and understood, otherwise one will not understand the results of one's actions. So God works in such a way that we can see these things, so that we can understand the problem of sin, and seek to be delivered from it.

She's not saying God did something arbitrary or artificial or imposed or whatever word one wishes to use so that when we do good, good things result, or when we do evil, bad things result.



I disagree with your assertions here. Specifically, that God could have created us without having a need to love God or be loved by Him. I think this demonstrates a lack of understanding of what eternal life is. According to Jesus, eternal life is knowing God. To know God is to love Him. Therefore we could not have had eternal life without knowing and loving God.

The way we were made, having free will, having a conscience, being able to love God and apprehend His love for us, were not arbitrary decisions. How many arms and legs we have, whether we have the types of bodies at all that we have (as opposed to angels) these sorts of things were arbitrary, but not characteristics like having free will, conscience, capacity to know an love God, etc.



No, He couldn't. God cannot command even Himself not to suffer. He suffers because He loves. The only way to avoid suffering is to not have sin. Suffering is not an arbitrary result that God decided one should feel.



Of course He chose how our bodies and minds should work, but in terms of our discussion, that bad things happen when one does evil, or good things when one does good, this was not something arbitrary which God caused to happen. It is a byproduct of being created as a moral being.

The examples you gave are also non-arbitrary, but the results of being created moral beings with the capacity to love and be loved.

It's an interesting conversation, that's for sure! We seem to be on opposite ends here. I see pretty much nothing as being arbitrary, except things having to do with physical characteristics, whereas you seem to think that there is no cause and effect at all, unless God arbitrarily puts it there. For example, you speak in terms of God creating cause and effect. I don't believe He created this. Cause and effect is itself a non-arbitrary thing.

I guess this is a good bottom line test. If you take the position that cause and effect is arbitrary, then it would follow that everything else is arbitrary too.

Just to be clear, I'm still using "arbitrary" in a non-pejorative way to mean simply that God did something specific to make things one way as opposed to some other way they could have been had He made some other decision. So God (under your view) could have made things such that causes would not have effects had He wanted to. I'm not 100% sure this is what you are wanting to say, but it seems to me you have been saying that God created the laws of cause and effect, which seems to me to be equivalent to saying that God could have created things in some other way, without these laws operating as they do.



Yes, the sin of his fully casting his allegiance to God did not happen until after he made his final decision to rebel, and this did not happen until after he was convinced he was wrong to do so. However, this isn't the only sin Lucifer had been committing. He committed a whole host of sins, which are easy to see in the passages I've been quoting.

To name just one, she said that he allowed envy and hatred to prevail over him and continued to resent God (this is from memory; words not 100% same, but idea is). This is *way* before the passage you are talking about. This is certainly a description of a willful sin.

Again, God offered Lucifer pardon again and again. For what, if not willful sin? These offers of pardon were *before* Lucifer cast off his allegiance to God.

If one simply reads the descriptions of what Lucifer did, it can be readily seen that he was willfully sinning. Just give the passage to someone who is not familiar with what we've been discussing and ask the question, "Is this being willfully sinning?"



"If they taught, then they weren't inspired by Jesus." I didn't understand what this meant until I translated it into Portuguese, and then it made perfect sense.

Let's start with Paul and Jesus first. I believe that Paul learned what he taught through Jesus' teachings. I don't believe that he articulated a new Gospel, one which Jesus did not teach, in particular that he did not articulate meanings for Christ's death which Jesus did not teach. Because I believe this, any teaching of Paul's on this question I can back up with statements of Jesus Christ.

Therefore if one really believes that Jesus and either Paul or EGW are teaching the same thing, you should be able to quote Jesus Christ when so requested, right? It would only be because they do not teach the same thing that you would quote them and not Jesus Christ when asked to provide a quote from Jesus Christ.

The reason you and Colin do not quote Jesus Christ to support your ideas is because you are unable to do so. The reason you are unable to do so is because He did not teach what you are asserting. In particular, He never taught that He had to die in order for God to be able to legally pardon us.



You mean like Calvin taught? There's not a soul on earth that would have understood Jesus' words along the lines of what Calvin taught. Can we agree on this point?



I've been quoting Jesus Christ. He seemed like a good choice.



To me what she wrote is the same thing as what I quoted from DA 25.



What do I mean? I'm asking you whether you understand Christ's pleading His blood for the forgiveness of sin as something literal. In other words, say you sin, and repent, and ask forgiveness. Do you see Christ as literally appearing before the Father, pleading His blood for you, so that God will forgive you?

Regarding your question about grace, I would say that God's grace is manifest in Christ, as opposed to created by Christ's death. From a physical standpoint, His grace is effective for all. From a spiritual standpoint, His grace becomes effective by faith in Christ.

I think Romans 5 tells us very well what Christ's death accomplished. It demonstrated God's love for His enemies thereby causing some of them to love Him and reconcile with Himself.



scott

I disagree. As I see it, God carefully planned every detail about both Adam’s body and mind.



“The will of God establishes the connection between cause and its effects. Fearful consequences are attached to the least violation of God's law. All will seek to avoid the result, but will not labor to avoid the cause which produced the effect. The cause is wrong, the effect right, to restrain the transgressor.” {ApM 26.1}


It's true he sinned, but the truth had to reach his understanding before he could be held accountable for these sins.
Anyway, it’s useless to continue discussing this, for we have done so many times in the past but haven’t been able to reach an agreement.


How should I have said this in English?


He never taught explicitly that there is a sanctuary in heaven and that He is the high priest of that sanctuary. He never taught explicitly that our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. He never taught explicitly that He had to die in order for God to be able to pardon us. But He did speak about these things, and what He said is further explained in other parts of the Bible.


First, light is progressive. Second, the fact that there are so many theories on the atonement shows the effort of Christians, to this day, to understand how Christ’s death effected our salvation. After all, this theme will be our study for all eternity. Ellen White throws further light on the subject, using elements from all the theories of the atonement, including the penal-substitution theory.


No. You seem to be trying to avoid what He said. How do you understand His words – that He came to give His life as a ransom?


Yes. I understand that my forgiveness comes only by virtue of the sacrifice He made. My sins are imputed to Him, and His righteousness imputed to me. He took upon Himself the curse of the law due to my transgressions.


“We have a risen Lord, ascended on high, who ever liveth to make intercession for us. ... We know where he is,--in the presence of the Father, pleading his blood for the forgiveness of our sins.” {RH, September 21, 1886 par. 15}

If Christ was speaking to human beings, it would still make sense for Him to speak of His death as the basis for their pardon, but since He is speaking to God, what sense does it make, under your view, to present His death as a basis for the forgiveness of their sins?

Just a note. I'll travel tomorrow morning and will be away until Sunday evening. I hope to be back here by Monday.

This response takes me aback. You can't really believe I don't think God carefully planned every detail about Adam's body and mind, do you? You must have seriously misunderstand what I wrote.

That the number of arms we have, and all the other physical characteristics we have, is arbitrary means that God used His individual discretion in determining these things, which, of course, implies that He carefully planned every detail about Adam's physical characteristics. I've been arguing that the fact that doing evil leads to bad results is not arbitrary, not that God didn't plan every detail about Adam's body and mind. Of course He did. He created Adam. How could God have created Adam without planning every detail?



Well, the will of God establishes everything, right? I don't know what you wish to say by this. I guess you are saying, in an indirect way, that you think the fact that a cause has an effect is arbitrary.



If he couldn't have been held accountable for these sins, he wouldn't have been offered pardon.



That's fine, but when the SOP is used to state that God can only legally pardon because Christ died, I'll bring Lucifer back up, because how God dealt with Lucifer completely disproves this idea. The fact is that God offered Lucifer pardon again and again, without any necessity for Christ's death. This establishes conclusively that God can offer pardon without death.



Here's a bit more of what you said to make this easier to explain:



You could say, "If they taught something different, then ..." or "If they so taught, then ..." "Taught," without a direct object, would refer to the act of teaching per se, not to the teaching of some specific thing.



Ok, here you're giving examples of other things which you don't believe Jesus explicitly taught. This implies you agree with my assertion, which is that Jesus did not explicitly teach that He had to die in order for God to legally pardon us. I agree!



I explained this previously, in quite some detail in fact. So I haven't been avoiding what He said.

I explained that ransom would likely have been understood as having to do with the freeing of slaves. By Christ's death, He freed us from the slavery of sin. How He did so He explained elsewhere in His teachings, for example, with Nicodemus, to whom He explained the principle of "look and live."

He used the word "ransom" because a ransom is a price which is necessary to be paid in order for one to be freed. It was necessary for Christ to die in order for us to be freed from sin.

This interpretation has the advantage of both being in harmony with what Christ often taught elsewhere, and being easily understood by His hearers. The idea that Christ was teaching that He had to die in order for God to legally pardon us has the following shortcomings.

1)It's not in harmony with the context.
2)No follower of His would have understood Him to be teaching Calvin's idea.
3)It doesn't agree with anything He taught elsewhere.



You said "yes," but then offered an explanation which is not literal, but symbolic. If you really believed it was literal, you would believe that Christ actually stands before God pleading His blood in our behalf so that God will forgive us, since that's what "literal" means.



I don't believe He's literally doing this. What would be the purpose? To remind God, because God had forgotten? To convince God to do something He would not otherwise be inclined to do? There's no reason for Christ to literally appear before God pleading His blood, is there?

The reason He is presented as speaking to God is for our benefit, not God's. It's a metaphor, or symbol, to let us know that our forgiveness is possible because of Christ's righteousness, not our own.

“Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!” What is the “wrath” of God? Why must justified sinners be “saved” from it? How are they saved from it “through” Jesus?

“For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” How does the death of Jesus “reconcile” sinners to God? How are they saved “through” Jesus’ life?

The following passages speak to what Jesus came to accomplish:

John
3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 John
3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Hi MM,

Since we are quoting from Romans 5 we might well look at the only systematic theology on the wrath of God in the bible. It happens to be in Romans 1 of which chapter 5 is a continuation. Romans 1 makes it clear that the wrath of God is God letting us go to the consequences of our chosen sin. So I would say that Jesus’ death demonstrated God’s love and reconciles the sinner back to God thus saving the sinner through a demonstration of His gracefulness.

What do you think “Saved by Grace” means?




Had Paul said this in English it would look something like this:

7 It is a rare thing for someone to give their life for a righteous man even though they might be willing to die for a good man, 8 but God demonstrated his love for us in that He sent Christ to die for us sinners. And now that we have been set right with God though this demonstration of his love in dying for us just think how much more we will be saved from our sins separating us from God in the end. 10 For if God’s enemies are made his friends through Jesus’ love shown by his death how much more shall His life of righteousness influence our salvation. 11 What a cause for rejoicing! Thank God that we have accepted his act of reconciliation.

scott

The passage doesn't say "God's wrath." It just says "wrath." The wrath Paul could be speaking of is ours. God saves us from our anger against Him by reconciling us to Himself. This fits in perfectly with the context of Romans 5. God wasn't angry at us, but loved us, so much so that He gave us His Son to save us from ourselves.