God did offer Lucifer pardon, and this offer did come before Jesus' death, but how do we know that He would not have died to have the right to grant such pardon? I'm just not sure on this point. This one enters the realm of extra-biblical, and may not be supportable in any particular direction. However, I would like to point out that Enoch, Moses, and Elijah had been given life in Heaven, Moses having been resurrected from the grave, before the penalty for their sins had actually been paid. So, in a sense, they were cashing in on an advance loan against their debt to sin. Had Jesus not paid the debt off, I wonder...of course, He _did_ pay it, so it is not worth the speculation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I've just been pointing out that Christ didn't have to die for God to *offer* the pardon. Once this is conceded, we can go on from there. It sounds like you might be willing to concede this point, but MM hasn't.



Speaking of extra-biblical, the idea you're suggesting, that Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were cashing in on an advance loan against their debt to sin has no foundation whatsoever in Scripture. The whole concept that God cannot freely forgive someone is foreign to what Christ taught.

Christ taught that God freely forgives us, and that we should forgive others as God has forgiven us. Now if God does not really freely forgive, but instead requires payment (although the payment can be provided by a third party, like His Son), then we, if we are to be like Him, should insist on payment as well before we forgive.

The parable of the 10,000 talents teaches us that God freely forgives the gigantic debt owed to him, and expects that we forgive, *in like manner*, the tiny debts owed to us.

Just a quickie.

As we have discussed before, while the revelation of God could be the whole purpose of Christ's ministry to man, there were other considerations beyond man. To limit His death as pertaining ONLY to His ministry to man is not warranted. In fact, we know of the quotes that tell us of some of the ramifications of Christ's death that reached the unfallen universe. Therefore, to force Christ's death into the box of "the revelation of God to man" is myopic. It is very possible that His death accomplished much more than the redemption of fallen man, including the unmasking of Satan's character to his former angelic friends and, perhaps, it could have been the payment of the past debt of sin of the 1/6 of the angels who turned back to God.

Of course, and Ellen White is not doing this in her quote. Her quote is dealing with the whole purpose of Christ's mission in relation to man. The context makes this clear. The whole article was inspired by Christ's prayer in John 17, the context of which is also dealing with man.



To attempt to do so would be taking her quote out of context which is, again, based on John 17, and is dealing with Christ's work as it relates to man.



Of course Christ's death accomplishes much more than simply the redemption of man, but the fact that she discusses *other* things that Christ's death accomplishes does not negate her point about Christ's mission to man, which is that the whole purpose of what He did was encapsulated in the revelation of God's character. Actually what Christ accomplished for other beings is also encapsulated in this same thing (although she didn't discuss this point here).

"No foundation whatsoever in Scripture"?! What do you do with Romans 6:23? Enoch and Elijah never died. Are you proposing that they had never sinned?

God can certainly freely forgive...and does...by His Divine authority. God, knowing the end from the beginning, seems to ignore time in this respect. However, God did not raise Moses from the dead without an argument with the Enemy. Jude gives us this and Mrs. White elaborates on it. Death was the only reward for sin according to the law. Prior to Christ's death on the cross, the ancients had to accept by faith that some day their Redeemer would come.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Right. So while Christ's death was part of the revelation of God's character to man, it is possible that it accomplishes other things.

It is also possible that Christ's death showed an aspect of God's character that is often missed - He obeys the laws that He requires His subjects to keep. IOW, He practices what He preaches. And one of those laws is, "The wages of sin is death." Even if the sinner repents and submits, is converted from sinner to saint, the wages of sin is still death.

Right on the mark! Again, the law of God IS a transcript of His character. It is a law of love, and God is love.

The question I would put to Tom and any others who feel that Jesus had the power to forgive and accept us into Heaven and eternal life without sacrificing Himself upon that cruel tree is simply this: Why did He do it? And why would God the Father let Him do it?

And then I would follow this by asking for a thorough explanation of Romans 6:23.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

To go from "the wages of sin is death" (or "sin pays its wages: death," as another translation puts it) to "Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were cashing in on an advance loan" is a mighty leap! Yes, there's no foundation in Scripture for this idea you suggested. I'll quote it:



Where does Scripture teach this idea? It looks like you are reasoning from the idea that because sin results in death that everything you wrote follows from that.



Even without the law, death would result in sin. The law was given as a means to help us understand this, so we would seek to be saved.

I didn't see that you addressed the points I raised in regards to forgiveness. To ask a specific question, where did Jesus Christ teach the ideas you are suggesting?

The whole purpose of Christ's ministry was the revelation of God, in order to set men right with God. Christ's death was a part of His ministry. Therefore its whole purpose was to reveal God. Everything Christ did was for that purpose.

Is there something wrong with this logic Arnold? If so, what? The first sentence is a direct quote from Ellen White, and the three following that are logical inferences. Do you see any error?



I agree.

Death is the result of sin. That's why we need to be saved from it. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ brings us to God.

Tom,

I'll admit that I assumed you would be able to understand the "leap" I presented. I was wrong. Here are the details to make that leap a few smaller steps in logic.

1) If Moses, Enoch and Elijah sinned, then the law says they must die.
2) The law makes no exceptions.
3) I believe that these men also sinned, for the Bible also makes no exceptions in this regard, saying that "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God" Rom. 3:23.
4) If God allowed them to come out from under the penalty of the law, then God has made an exception for them. This exception, apart from Jesus' sacrifice for us, amounts to a deviation from the law. Such a deviation from the law breaks the law. Therefore, God would not have been keeping the law.
5) The law requires the death of the sinner. The law knows no mercy. There are no exceptions. This is why Jesus had to fulfill the law's requirement for us, because we, having already sinned, had no way out other than to die. Jesus, being perfect, was able to die that death in our place. He was our substitute, and took our penalty.

Therefore, since Moses, Enoch, and Elijah had taken an advance on life--which could ONLY be based on Jesus' perfect life and death for them--had Jesus failed in His mission, these men would have been legally under the death penalty still.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" Rom. 6:23.

It could only be Jesus, because only Jesus had died the death in fulfillment of the law.

When Paul says we are not under the law, he is meaning that we are not under THE PENALTY OF the law. In great grace toward lowly and vile sinners, Jesus has taken our dept and paid it Himself. We must accept the gift, however, or we will not receive it.

"But as many as received him, to them gave he the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name" John 1:12.

That "believe on his name" part is no small trifle. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" Acts 4:12

Why is His name so important? For the simple reason that Jesus is the only one who died as the law requires, yet being perfect and not deserving of that debt, so that we could accept His sacrifice in our stead. To "believe on His name" implies an acceptance of His sacrifice in our behalf.

Now, Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, as I presented in the quote from Mrs. White last time, also had to believe in Jesus as their Savior. The patriarchs had to have faith in the coming Messiah. We must have the same faith, but have the advantage of an assurance that the Messiah has already come and fulfilled the prophecies, taking our punishment upon Him. Isaiah 53 is pretty clear that He did it for us. Isaiah was still looking forward to that time yet future.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father but by me." It is my firm conviction that this means Enoch, Moses, and Elijah also could not have come to God but through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.