Law and justice require death in consequence of man's sin - not sinners.

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. {AG 139.2}

Soooo,...the judgement of the wicked in hell involves God's displeasurable wrath against sin: what, and Jesus' death didn't endure divine wrath against sin as he legally saved sinners from judgement?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The other post was just a quote, right?



No, Jesus' death was similar to the death of the wicked insofar as God's wrath is concerned. However, your whole conception of the matter is different than mine. What is the problem that had to be solved?

Ellen White wrote:



Whatever that problem was, it had to be something which could be solved by "the revelation of God," since that was the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission.

IOW, God demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. And as part of His work, "Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon."


And "the revelation of God" apparently includes the fact that "the death penalty must be executed." The execution of the death penalty is as much a revelation of God as is the pardoning of sin. In Christ's life and death, He revealed that God's character requires both pardon for the penitent and death for the sinner.

Why does God demand this? Is it for Himself? Or for man's sake?

If it is for Himself, then why do we read this?:



God would have needed Christ's death to offer Lucifer pardon as much as He would for man. Given that God did offer Lucifer pardon, without the death penalty being executed, it seems the necessity was not God related, but man related.



Right!!



The execution of the death penalty was a part of the revelation of God which was necessary in order to set man right with God.

Just one question for now: you admit that God demands the death penalty for sin??! You NEVER argue this truth while you argue against legal requirements for forgiveness in your promotion of God revealing his character in Jesus. Why DO you only concede this points when pressured by evidence but appear to resist it when others suggest it? In OUR discussions you have certainly disagreed with me that God's justice demands/requires Jesus' death for our forgiveness: do you consider this requirement for forgiveness as something different than God's demands that the death penalty be executed?

"It seems" is the operative part of your argument: are the rules for man's salvation equal to the rules for angles' salvation? Quite likely, since the same law is involved with both. You are rather speculating about an atoning sacrifice not being necessary for Lucifer, based on nothing other than Scripture & SOP's silence.

What I'll say this time is that a promise of a Saviour for Lucifer and his angels should they repent isn't mentioned because what is mentioned is that the fire of hell is prepared for only the devil and his angels, whose history of unrepentance is fully disclosed. There is no revealed promise of a sacrifice for their salvation because the revelation is their story of entrenched rebellion in the presence of God's glory and his Son's counsels with them: they are without excuse for their lost state because of rebellion in heaven itself - not because they haven't availed themselves of a Saviour.

I am thinking of other possibilities here, but they follow the same line.

You've never admitted this before in my discussions with you, so why now?

What I agree to was that the death penalty must be executed. Here's an explanation I've quoted often:



I understand that it was necessary for Christ to die because that was the only way by which man could be reconciled to God. I reject your legal argument in regards to the SOP because of how she describes Lucifer's situation. Lucifer sinned, but was given the opportunity to confess his sin. God offered Lucifer pardon again and again on the condition of repentance and submission. If the legal argument you make were true, Christ would have had to die in order for God to offer Lucifer pardon.



It's hardly speculating. The SOP wrote many pages regarding Lucifer's fall. She is very clear regarding the fact that Lucifer was offered pardon and what the conditions for that pardon were.



Please, would you stop with the accusations? Can't you adopt a more friendly tone? I've quoted the following many, many times:



This quote is speaking of Christ's death. I've also quoted the Fifield quote, which I quoted in this post, many times. This also speaks of the sacrifice of Christ. This sacrifice was necessary for *man*, not for God. It was necessary to bring us to God, as Peter puts it. I've made this point many, many times.

Our differences come down to differing assumptions. It appears to me that you see the fundamental problem to be a legal one. God's law was broken, first in heaven, then in earth, and the breaking of that law requires certain actions on the part of God, including the death of His Son, in order for God to be able to do certain things, like forgive man.

I see the issue as one involving God's character. Man was deceived by Satan, who resorted to deception in order to lead man into sin. Sin causes us to believe things about God which are not true. The condemnation which man feels comes from sin. Man needs to be healed from sin, and the only way to do this is by making known that truth about God.

In addition to man's problems, there are the greater problems of the universe as a whole, and the vindication of God's throne. In order for God to be vindicated, it was necessary that Satan's claims be proven false, and that God's true character be revealed. Thus revealing the truth about God, and Satan, solves both man's problem and the problem of the universe as a whole.

That's a short description. I can go in more detail, if desired.

I think our discussion might be more fruitful if we discussed our basic differences. Then you might understand how I'm understanding the quotes that are presented. I'm not expecting you'll agree with me, but at least you might understand how I'm thinking. Once the thinking is understood, the reasoning immediately follows. If you asked these same questions of Scott, for example, he would give answers very similar to mine, simply because he perceives the problem along similar lines as me.

I don't remember seeing this one posted yet:

Isn't this what I've been saying?