God demands death for sin for the good of the Universe. A law worth having is worth enforcing. An unenforced law is a worthless law.

Also, the fact God had to prevent sinners from eating from the tree of life and living forever makes it clear sin is not what kills sinners. God will employ three of different types of fire in executing justice at the end of time - 1) fire from above, 2) fire from below, and 3) the fire light of His radiant brightness.

PS - I was on page 16 when I posted the post in question. It appeared on the top of page 17 without my knowing it until now.

The wrath of God is love, therefore, the "anger" you referred to is unlike anything we know. It is divine. God labors long and hard to woo and win us with His love. The blessed Godhead covenanted to lovingly and voluntarily pay our sin debt of death on the cross. This accomplishes four very necessary things - 1) it protects and preserves the integrity of the law, 2) it satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice, 3) it makes pardon for past sins possible, and 4) it enables God to empower sinners to repent and experience salvation.

The implementation and accomplishment of these four things also serve to vindicate God's kingdom and character thereby disproving Satan's accusations thus sealing his fate in the lake of fire. God's primary goal is to restore law and order and peace and happiness to the universe and in so doing He disproves Satan's accusations. He is not so selfish as to make His vindication the primary goal. Love is what drives God to save the penitent and to punish and destroy the impenitent. And, love "seeketh not her own." It is always and forever others-oriented.


That's why I usually steer away from titles like "penal model" or whatever. I prefer to describe what the plan of salvation accomplishes for everyone involved - God, angels, humans, and all the other unfallen beings God created.


What I described above includes the healing aspect you talk about here. However, your HIV analogy does not take into account past sins. God cannot justifiably ignore them. Death must come in consequence of sin. It is necessary to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. Thus, Jesus had to die. It was not an option since God's desire is to pardon and save penitent sinners.


There is a huge difference between humans forgiving humans and God forgiving humans. When we forgive each other it does not result in pardon and salvation. God cannot forgive us if we refuse to repent and experience the free gift of salvation (which includes confessing and crucifying our cultivated sinful traits and habits, being born again, abiding in Jesus, and maturing daily in the fruits of the Spirit).

MM, you didn't address my questions. The first question addresses God's character. It is asking what about God's character causes Him to demand death for sin. You said absolutely nothing about God's character in your response. Also your response is just begging the same question I'm asking. You say that a law worth having is worth enforcing. Why is killing someone if they sin a law worth having? And why did God make this law in the first place? In other words, what is it about God's character that causes Him to demand death for sin?

You cannot reference the law in your response to this question, because the law is a transcript of God's character. The response to this question should only reference God's character, not the law.

Here's my second question:



You didn't address this question.

By the way, your logic is flawed in what you said. You said:



Consider some poison which has an antidote. If the person doesn't take the antidote, they die. The antidote represents the tree of life. The poison represents sin. Here's how your sentence reads, with these substitutions:

The fact God had to prevent sinners from taking the antidote makes it clear that poison does not kill.

Do you see the logical problem here? If sin were *not* deadly, *then* God would not have had to take action to prevent access to the tree of life. It is precisely because sin *is* deadly that action had to be taken.



Ok. I suggest looking at what you post after you post it. I know it's not always possible to do this. I've made goofs like this too. It's just this particular thing has come up a number of times, where there's a reference to stuff on a previous page. This happens to me too. When I notice it, I go back and grab more stuff so it's easier for the person reading it.

This is directed towards Aaron, so I'm skipping most of it, but thought I'd comment on this last piece.



What do you say there's a vast difference? Jesus said we should forgive others as we have been forgiven. If there were a "vast difference," this wouldn't be possible. The fact that Jesus taught us to forgive the transgressions of others as God has forgiven our transgressions means there is a vast similarity, not a vast difference.

You say that when a human forgives another human that this does not result in pardon. "Pardon" means "forgiveness." So you are saying that when a human forgives another human, this does not result in forgiveness.

You say God cannot forgive us if we refuse to repent. The same thing is true among humans. There's no difference.

If you wrong me, our relationship cannot be restored unless you repent. I cannot forgive you unless you wish to be forgiven. I can be disposed to forgive you, which is what we really mean when we say, "I forgive you," but pardon, or forgiveness, cannot be granted unless there is a desire for it by the offending party.

In exactly the same sense that we "forgive" someone else (which really means we are disposed to forgive them, if they wish it) when they have wronged us (before the time they repent), so God "forgives" us (or is disposed to forgive us).

2 Cor. 5:19 brings this out:



This is what forgiveness is (from the standpoint of the wronged party), not counting a person's wrong-doings against them. Precisely what God has done for us is what He wants us to do for others. "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."

This point was already discussed in this thread (post 99932 onward).


The opposite is true. Only those who understand the enormity of the price paid on the cross to save man can appreciate how great God’s love is, and only those who so appreciate His love can be really healed and see the truth of God's character in its fullest revelation.


Why, after we have discussed this so many times, you still insist in presenting things under a false light? It’s not that God cannot forgive unless someone is killed. The problem is that every sin affects the whole universe, and God cannot leave sin unjudged. However, when God judges sin the sinner is crushed under the weight of his guilt. Yes, death is the inevitable result of sin.


Yes, God needed a solution for judging sin and upholding His law without leading the sinner to death.


Again, after so many discussions, why not represent the penal substitution view correctly? The Author of the law and the Creator of man took the penalty of His own law on Himself. He underwent the judgment in our place.


Christ finished the part He had agreed to do in the plan of salvation to save man – and the universe.


Both are true, not just one of them.

Thank you for providing the link. That was convenient. I read through the posts, and couldn't find any reference suggesting that God could not legally forgive except by way of Christ's death. I saw comments making references to quotes, but no actual quotes themselves. For example, the following was written:



To which you concluded:



which seems a stretch. First of all, no actual quote was cited. Secondly, the dogma was something which would occur well in the future, not something which was happening at this time.

When considering the historical viability of the theory, it's not simply a matter of considering what happened in the early centuries after Christ, but during the time of Christ, when the NT was being written. The following cite points out that the "ransom" referred to by Mark was not a penal substitutionary sacrifice for sin:



Crossen, in his book, "In search of Paul," points out that the penal substitution idea of sacrifice did not exist in the time of Paul.

Jesus Himself never taught this idea. He taught that we should forgive others as we have been forgiven. He didn't teach that His death was necessary in order for God to forgive us.

First of all, it looks like you missed the point I was making, which may be my fault in not making it clear. It obfuscates the real issue in the penal substitution adherents routinely talk of nothing else. They don't talk of God's love shining from the cross motivating us to give our lives for Him. On this forum, I can only think of myself making this point. I don't think anyone disagrees with this idea, but nobody else makes it. Similarly, nobody makes the point that the sacrifice of Christ revealed God's character, and this is how the Great Controversy is won. Even if the penal substitution theory were true, surely the fact that the sacrifice of Christ wins the Great Controversy should dwarf this in importance.

Indeed, if one considers the chapter "It Is Finished" from "The Desire of Ages," one sees that the penal substitution idea is barely mentioned, if at all. That is, there is one portion of a paragraph which has language which could be construed as penal language, or conveying the penal theme. Even if one conceded this as discussing the penal idea, there are seven pages in this chapter, and 6 9/10 of these pages are not discussing the penal idea at all. Yet when the question of what "It Is Finished" means, what I see is invariably an explanation involving the penalty of our sin being paid for so that God can forgive us, and nothing else.

Regarding your point that "the opposite is true" that "Only those who understand the enormity of the price paid on the cross to save man can appreciate how great God’s love is, and only those who so appreciate His love can be really healed and see the truth of God's character in its fullest revelation." I would certainly agree that this is true, but strongly dispute your unstated but implied point that only those who hold to the penal view can understand the enormity of the price paid on the cross.

The following is from Ty Gibson's book "See With New Eyes"



This is from the chapter "Love Beyond Knowledge." The whole chapter deals with the them of what the sacrifice of Christ cost, and Ty has devoted other chapters to this same theme, from both this book and other books. It's obvious he understands the idea.

I could substantiate this idea from any other authors. I can only wonder why you would have the idea that one must be a penal substitution adherent to understand the cost of our salvation.

There's another aspect to the cost of our salvation, which is brought out here:



God actually risked losing Christ forever for our salvation. Your idea of God's foreknowledge prevents you from appreciating this truth, but it's something that amazes me no end. Christ on the cross revealed not only the cost that He Himself paid, but the cost to God as well. He revealed this to us by revealing God's character. God loves us to the point of sacrifice, sacrificing His all, even His only Son.

No, one does not need to be a penal substitution adherent to appreciate this wonderful truth!

You are disagreeing with the idea that someone must be killed in order for God to forgive? So Christ did not have to die in order for God to forgive us? What's your idea than?

I don't know how you can say I'm presenting the penal substitution idea in a false light. This is from wiki (so you know it must be right):



This is what you believe, isn't it? Assuming this is so, then is it not correct to assert that under this view God needed someone to be killed (specifically Christ) in order to be able to pardon us?



I think this statement is OK. However, this isn't something that needed to be done for God, but for us. One could put this in terms of something necessary for God in order for Him to be able to do something for us, but that's not the idea I'm addressing. I'm addressing the idea that God Himself, for His own purposes aside from what He would accomplish for us, needed the sacrifice of Christ (for example, in order to be reconciled to us.)



The isn't the standard formulation of the penal substitution idea. The way you have put it here is not so bad. I think I agree with this (although probably you and I would understand "penalty" differently). At any rate, this is certainly a better way of formulating the idea than how one normally hears it.



Which was primarily the "revelation of God," as the SOP points out in saying that this was the "whole purpose" of His mission on earth. Given that this is described as the "whole purpose" of His mission, one should at least concede that this was the principle purpose of His mission, shouldn't one?



They can't both be true. If cyanide kills us because it is poison, then it doesn't not kill because capital punishment is given to those who take it. At the very least, if it is deadly, capital punishment would be unnecessarily redundant.

By the way, I agree with what you've said about how sin kills, in that the guilt accompanying it crushes the one with the sin when God reveals His righteousness. This isn't exactly how you put it, but it's the same (or very similar idea) to what you've expressed (and the way you express it is fine to me, I just don't remember exactly how you put it). Now given that sin is deadly in this way, why could we not simply say that the wicked receive death as the result of their choice (sin)?

But if His law and His character are one and the same thing how can I speak to the one and not to the other? That would be impossible, right? But the truth is there are differences. For example, God can pardon penitent sinners whereas the law cannot. God can save penitent sinners whereas the law cannot. And, God can empower penitent sinners to live righteously whereas the law cannot. In these critical ways the law and God are very different.

Now, why did God establish a law that requires Him to punish and destroy sinners? What is it about His character that caused Him to establish such a law? God is love – that’s why! Law and order means everything to Him. So much so that He gave His only begotten Son to protect and preserve its sacredness and integrity. To pardon and save sinners is only one aspect of God’s plan to make the Universe a safe and secure place for FMAs – to uplift and magnify His law is another aspect, a reason equally as important. Listen:


There is also an aspect of divine retribution. Which is nothing like human retribution. Divine retribution is akin to righteous indignation. God is offended when sinners tread Jesus under foot and despise the blood of His sacrifice. Paul expresses these feelings in the following passage:


Ellen White concurs. Listen:

But the tree of life is not the antidote – Jesus is! Eating from the tree of life does not cure sin. Only Jesus can do that. The tree of life merely perpetuates life. That’s all. God denies sinners access to the tree of life as a blessing to prevent them from living forever in a sinful state. The fact they would live forever in a sinful state makes it clear sin is not what kills them. Otherwise, sin would kill them in spite of eating from the tree of life since it is not the antidote for sin.


When God pardons us it results in salvation and eternal life. Does that happen when you pardon someone?