Yes. You did not address correctly what you actually did, which I pointed out. If you were using it in the sense you alleged, I wouldn't have commented and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You spoke of a system based on a procedure you said was "invalid," and explained that this didn't make sense to you. This is very different than not understanding how God became a human being, which nobody understands.



It seems to me she's making the same point that I'm making, actually, that she made, that death is the inevitable result of sin. So even though there was an earthly punishment, this was not the death which comes as the inevitable result of sin.



I didn't say this. You say that death does not result from sin. I say it does. I was explaining what logically follows from taking this point of view.

In regards to the moral influence of Jesus' death, this certainly isn't something you emphasize. If you mention it at all, it's only as a distant afterthought. You can go pages upon pages, weeks at a time, without mentioning it at all.



What EGW wrote is that had God *left* Satan to reap the result of his sin, he would have perished, but had God done so, this would have planted a seed of doubt in the angels because they did not understand that death is the inevitable result of sin. I don't see you can possibly disagree with this way of putting DA 764, as this is just what she says. Now this doesn't make any sense whatsoever if Satan dies because God kills him.



Sorry if I misrepresented you, but I recall you emphasizing many times that Jesus' death was very different than the death of the wicked.



You certainly gave the impression that the legal aspect is primary. This is what you speak of over 95% of the time.

Ok, if this is what you say (even if your actions don't support this) I'll take you at your word, and represent it as a reason you believe Christ died, one among many, equally important as the others.

Tom, I know what I meant to say and what I didn’t mean to say. You can believe me or continue to believe whatever you want. I have changed my mind. Obviously I used words that made you think I meant something other than what I believe. So, disregard those words and listen to what I’m telling you now. I’m trying to use words that will help you understand what I believe.


No, what she is said that the punishment for sin did not end with the execution of capital punishment. So, the question remains unanswered - What is so symbiotic, so organic about capital punishment? You make it sound like the crime is what inflicts the punishment. But Ellen says the penalty for sinning is punishment. She doesn’t say the punishment is the crime.


Do you agree with me that the view I have embraced includes the moral influence aspect of Jesus’ death?


There is no reason to keep reminding you of what we already agree on. We are discussing what we seem to disagree on. The reason it goes on for weeks and weeks and months and months is because you keep emphasizing what we already agree on instead of discussing what we seem to disagree on.


She said “some” not all. “Had he been immediately blotted out of existence, some would have served God from fear rather than from love.” Only God could have “immediately blotted him out of existence”. You seem to think sin is what would have immediately blotted him out of existence. I disagree. “Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law.” God, not sin, will exterminate sin and sinners.


It was in many ways very different, most notably, He didn’t die the second death – He tasted and conquered it! Then He died the first death.


I addressed this comment above.


If you prefer I can remind you more often. But, as you know, discussions die out when agreement is reached. The reason certain ideas get over 95% of the attention is because it is being discussed. The brother of the prodigal son felt bummed out because the wayward son got 95% of the father’s attention. Jesus left the ninety and nine to search for the one lost sheep. That’s just the nature of the beast. Problems receive the majority of the attention. There’s nothing wrong with it. It doesn’t mean what’s right is less important.

Do you agree with me that Ellen spoke on behalf of Jesus?

Also, Tom, have pity on me and post passages that clearly explain why Jesus had to die.

I agree there are several places where the manner of His death is hidden in symbolic, cryptic, prophetic language, but these passages do not explain why He had to die.

I also understand that the Bible speaks of the benefits, the fruits of His death, but again these passages do not explain why He had to die. One could argue, I suppose, such passages imply why He had to die, and I would have to agree.

But my point is - It is not clearly explained in the Bible. It was simply taken for granted. Oral tradition preserved the knowledge and was written down from time to time since the passing of the apostles. Ellen also wrote about it.

The majority of humans born since A&E will pay the price Jesus paid when they suffer and die at the end of time. Unlike Jesus, of course, they will not survive draining the cup of woe. So, do you agree with me that the majority of mankind can and will die the second death? And, do you agree it will pay the price for the penalty of sinning?

MM, here's what you said:



This seems pretty clear. You said "logic doesn't have anything to do with it. Love doesn't have to be logical to be valid." Above that you said, "I don't understand why it is valid. In human courts of law we do not allow death-row criminals to go free and execute an innocent person in their place."



That's what I said.



Capital punishment has nothing to do with it.



In the case of sin, it is. Waggoner expresses this nicely in "The Glad Tidings." In Chapter 3 I think. Something along the lines of the law is everywhere, so whenever a person sins, the curse is right there. I can't remember exactly.



Ty Gibson puts it like this: "The punishment is organic to the sin itself" (or maybe he says inherent, something like that).

Ellen White expresses this same thought this way:



This can't be an arbitrarily caused punishment, because in this case she could not have spoken of God's *leaving* Satan to reap the full results of his sin. If God were *causing* those results, this could hardly be expressed as God's *leaving" Satan to those results.

Also her comments about a doubt of God's goodness coming about because it wouldn't have been apparent to the angels that Satan's death was the "inevitable result of sin."

If what you're suggesting were true, then death would not be the inevitable result of sin. If death is NOT the inevitable result of sin, then there's no way the angels could confuse God's actions.

I keep trying to explain this to you, but you've never gotten it. You don't have to agree with what I'm saying, but it would be nice if you understood the point. Perhaps I'm not explaining it clearly enough. I'll try some more.

If Satan dies because God kills him, then Satan does not die because of sin. If Satan does not die because of sin, then God's actions could not be confused with causing Satan's death. There would be nothing to confuse God's actions with, as God would be doing the very thing that EGW says the angels would have confused God as doing.

This doesn't seem clear either. Let me try another way. Let's assume for a moment that "leave Satan to suffer the full result of sin" means capital punishment. Then we would have Ellen White saying:

God did not have Satan killed immediately because had He done so, the angels would not have understood this is the inevitable result of sin.

What?! If God kills Satan, then death isn't the inevitable result of sin. There would be nothing to be confused over. The angels would think that God was killing Satan, as, indeed, He would be doing.

So your idea that this is speaking of capital punishment just doesn't make sense.

Obviously we don't agree on this, MM. If you agreed with me, you would see that the penal ideas you have are superfluous, completely unnecessary.

If we understand that Jesus had to die in order for the truth to be made clear, and that making the truth clear solves the problems that needed to be solved, then there's no need to go looking for some additional reason.

I'm reminding of the following:

You completely ignored the point.



I'm not the only one you discuss this with. Perhaps you're not aware of how much you emphasize this. Just a thought.



Even we speak on behalf of Christ. That doesn't mean our words are clearer than Christ. "Never a man spoke as He spoke."



I don't this several times. John 3:1-something (23? or so) is one place that's been mentioned several times.



Peter explains why in 1 Pet. 2:24, 25 as well as 1 Pet. 3:18. He's quoting from Isa. 53, which is another place. Isa. 53 is quoted in many places in the NT. You could try looking at the NASB online, go to Isa. 53, and see all the links there are to NT passages quoting it.



He dies to make the fruits you speaks of come to fruition.



Well done!



When the Bible speaks of the benefits, is that clearly done?



Please quote some inspired text which says this.

Was Jesus' death like the death of the wicked? Or unlike it? If it was unlike it, how could the wicked be paying the same price Jesus paid?



No, not in your terms. I don't see it as an arbitrary thing which pays some price. I see their death as the inevitable result of sin. Sin is to death as the acorn is to the Oak tree. "Sin, when it is finished, brings forth death."

I thought this was an interesting observation. The internet is an odd beast. When I speak on the phone, I can talk about spiritual things for hours without any disagreement, but, on the internet, I'd have to agree with your observation.

What are you accusing me of? What do you think I believe?


What do you call stoning someone to death? The punishment for certain sins began with capital punishment. So, the question remains unanswered - What is so symbiotic, so organic about capital punishment?


Thank you verifying this point.


Punishment and suffering and death are the inevitable results of sin – not just suffering and death. Had God punished the evil angels prematurely, the loyal angels would not have understood why it was the right and righteous thing for God to do. Again, capital punishment, the infliction of punishment by God, is the inevitable results of sin. The same is true of all governments. God’s government is no different.

I understand your view, Tom. I have for some time now. You believe God is preventing sinners from succumbing to the natural, unimpeded cause and consequence effects of sinning. You believe as soon as God stops doing this, sinners will immediately begin suffering emotionally and physically in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness and then die. You refer to this as God “punishing” them.

What you haven't made clear yet is the role God's glory plays in the final demise of sinners at the end of time. At times it seems like you're saying it is the glory of God reacting with sin that causes sinners to suffer and die. Then at other times it seems like you believe it is sin alone that causes them to suffer and die. Please explain this to me.