M: I've never said it is illogical; it's just that 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.

T: You said it doesn't make sense. Something which doesn't make sense is illogical. You don't understand why it's valid because it isn't. You're absolutely right is asserting that it doesn't make sense.

M: Logic doesn't have anything to do with it. Love doesn't have to be logical to be valid. But this isn't to say it is illogical. I don't understand it, but I believe it because God said so.

T: So you think God wants you to believe things which don't make sense. I don't believe this is true. I think God appeals to us on the basis of reason. Not reason alone, but reason is involved. He doesn't ask us to believe things which don't make sense or aren't valid.


God never asks us to believe (note: never) without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. This evidence appeals to our reason.


An argument which is based on "I believe this because God said so, but it doesn't make sense to me" is hardly one that can stand up to scrutiny. And it's unflattering to God. God has given us ample evidence upon which to understand the meaning of Christ's death. You're suggesting He came up with a way of saving us which doesn't appeal to our reason.

M: Do you think death-row sinners are allowed to go free at least partly because Jesus died in their place?

T: This one flew way over my head. I have no idea either what you are talking about nor why.

M: Are you assuming "explain why Jesus had to die" and "explain the meaning of the death of Christ" mean the same thing?

T: The meaning of the death of Christ encapsulates why Jesus had to die.

M: "How did, for example, the Galatians receive this oral tradition?" Why, Paul told them, of course!

T: He told them. But not in his letters to them, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit for all time, but only when speaking to them in person? Why do you think the Holy Spirit would do this? Isn't it as important for the readers of Scripture to understand Christ's death as it was for the Galatians?

T:An argument which is based on "I believe this because God said so, but it doesn't make sense to me" is hardly one that can stand up to scrutiny. And it's unflattering to God. God has given us ample evidence upon which to understand the meaning of Christ's death. You're suggesting He came up with a way of saving us which doesn't appeal to our reason.

M:Perhaps I’m not as advanced as you are in understanding the mystery of godliness. I’m glad you feel you understand certain things as well as it seems you do. It must be nice. But I’m not as far along as you are. I am not being facetious, Tom. I really do think you are "way more" smarter than I am.

However, at this point, I cannot dismiss the evidence which clearly says Jesus was punished for our sins as if He committed them Himself, that His substitutionary death on our behalf and in our place vindicates the broken law of God, and that it satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice. Law and justice no longer demand our death because Jesus' death counts as our death. In Christ, we have paid the cost of sin, death; therefore, we are no longer on death row.

Nevertheless, I am also quick to admit that I don’t understand how or why the substitutionary death of the incarnated sinless Son of God gives Him the right to pardon and save penitent sinners.

I understand death must happen in consequence of sin, but I don’t understand how the death of Jesus satisfies law and justice on our behalf. By all rights I should die – not Jesus!

M: Do you think death-row sinners are allowed to go free at least partly because Jesus died in their place?

T: This one flew way over my head. I have no idea either what you are talking about nor why.

M:Yeah, that one seemed a bit disconnected. I’ll rephrase it. Sinners are on death-row. But, if they embrace Jesus as their personal Savior, His death counts as their death and they are free to go. However, they are not free to sin. Jesus said, “Go, and sin no more.” They must, of course, abide in Jesus and partake of the divine nature in order to actually live without sinning.

So, my question is – Do you agree that Jesus’ death counts as their death and that that is (at least partly) why they are removed from death row, why they no longer have to pay for their sins by dying?

I say “at least partly” because I understand that His death also serves to solve and settle other issues as well, namely, to demonstrate the self-sacrificing love of God and to motivate and influence sinners to love and obey Him.

M: Are you assuming "explain why Jesus had to die" and "explain the meaning of the death of Christ" mean the same thing?

T: The meaning of the death of Christ encapsulates why Jesus had to die.

M:What is the meaning of death? What is the meaning of my death (if and when it happens)? What is the meaning of Jesus’ death?

M: "How did, for example, the Galatians receive this oral tradition?" Why, Paul told them, of course!

T: He told them. But not in his letters to them, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit for all time, but only when speaking to them in person? Why do you think the Holy Spirit would do this? Isn't it as important for the readers of Scripture to understand Christ's death as it was for the Galatians?

M:Yes, it is just as important for us to know why Jesus had to die. And, fortunately for us, we have the benefit of oral tradition the same as they did.

T: The issue involves being willing to accept things which don't make sense. This is dangerous.

M: However, at this point, I cannot dismiss the evidence which clearly says Jesus was punished for our sins as if He committed them Himself, that His substitutionary death on our behalf and in our place vindicates the broken law of God, and that it satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice. Law and justice no longer demand our death because Jesus' death counts as our death. In Christ, we have paid the cost of sin, death; therefore, we are no longer on death row.

T: I think I agree with all of this (I haven't carefully gone over each and every word, but just reading through, I think so.) So it's not this that's the problem, but ascribing a meaning to these words which has you believing things which don't make sense.

M: Nevertheless, I am also quick to admit that I don’t understand how or why the substitutionary death of the incarnated sinless Son of God gives Him the right to pardon and save penitent sinners.

T: Read GC's explanation carefully, and hopefully that will help! I have other things I could send your way on this matter too, if you're interested.

M: I understand death must happen in consequence of sin, but I don’t understand how the death of Jesus satisfies law and justice on our behalf. By all rights I should die – not Jesus!

T: Again, the same offer applies.

M: Do you think death-row sinners are allowed to go free at least partly because Jesus died in their place?

T: This one flew way over my head. I have no idea either what you are talking about nor why.

M: Yeah, that one seemed a bit disconnected. I’ll rephrase it. Sinners are on death-row. But, if they embrace Jesus as their personal Savior, His death counts as their death and they are free to go. However, they are not free to sin. Jesus said, “Go, and sin no more.” They must, of course, abide in Jesus and partake of the divine nature in order to actually live without sinning. So, my question is – Do you agree that Jesus’ death counts as their death and that that is (at least partly) why they are removed from death row, why they no longer have to pay for their sins by dying?

T: I don't think one pays for one's sins by dying, if this means that something not inherent to sin itself is imposed artificially or arbitrarily upon someone as a means of punishment. I don't think looking at the issue in this way is even helpful. I think a careful reading of the first chapter of "The Desire of Ages" would be very helpful. In that chapter, EGW writes that Christ suffered the death that was ours that we might live the life that was His. That's not only eloquent and beautiful, but accurate and the right way of looking at it, IMO.

M: I say “at least partly” because I understand that His death also serves to solve and settle other issues as well, namely, to demonstrate the self-sacrificing love of God and to motivate and influence sinners to love and obey Him.

T: I agree with this. It also vindicated the throne of God, and made the universe eternally secure (pretty important!).

“There are no saving properties in the law. It cannot pardon the transgressor. The penalty must be exacted. The Lord does not save sinners by abolishing His law, the foundation of His government in heaven and in earth. The punishment has been endured by the sinner's substitute. Not that God is cruel and merciless, and Christ so merciful that He died on Calvary's cross to abolish a law so arbitrary that it needed to be extinguished, crucified between two thieves. The throne of God must not bear one stain of crime, one taint of sin. In the councils of heaven, before the world was created, the Father and the Son covenanted together that if man proved disloyal to God, Christ, one with the Father, would take the place of the transgressor, and suffer the penalty of justice that must fall upon him (MS 145, 1897). {6BC 1070.4}

“The death of the spotless Son of God testifies that "the wages of sin is death," that every violation of God's law must receive its just retribution. Christ the sinless became sin for man. He bore the guilt of transgression, and the hiding of His Father's face, until His heart was broken and His life crushed out. All this sacrifice was made that sinners might be redeemed. In no other way could man be freed from the penalty of sin. And every soul that refuses to become a partaker of the atonement provided at such a cost must bear in his own person the guilt and punishment of transgression. {GC 539.3}

"Transgression is disobedience to the commands of God. Had these commands always been obeyed, there would have been no sin. The penalty of transgression is always death. Christ averted the immediate execution of the death sentence by giving His life for man. . . . Justice requires that men shall have light, and it also requires that he who refuses to walk in the Heaven-given light, the giving of which cost the death of the Son of God, must receive punishment. {HP 153.3}

“But those who have not, through repentance and faith, secured pardon, must receive the penalty of transgression--"the wages of sin." They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, "according to their works," but finally ending in the second death. {GC 544.2} “In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch--Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. {GC 673.1}

“When God pardons the sinner, remits the punishment he deserves, and treats him as though he had not sinned, He receives him into divine favor, and justifies him through the merits of Christ's righteousness. The sinner can be justified only through faith in the atonement made through God's dear Son, who became a sacrifice for the sins of the guilty world. No one can be justified by any works of his own. He can be delivered from the guilt of sin, from the condemnation of the law, from the penalty of transgression, only by virtue of the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. {NL 20.1}

The suffering and death of Christ has paid the price for your redemption, and through faith in Him you may overcome. {UL 252.6} The Lord has paid the price of His own blood for the salvation of the world. He suffered every indignity that men could devise and Satan could invent, in order to carry out the plan of salvation. {FE 527.1} Since Christ has paid the price for all the service that we should give Him, we are His servants by purchase. {5BC 1142.10}

He paid the price of His own life that no one should be eternally lost. {SD 230.4} He paid the price for all, to ransom them and bring them into union and sympathy with Himself. {5T 603.2} Christ, the only begotten Son of God, pledged Himself for the redemption of man, and paid the price of his ransom on the cross of Calvary. {TMK 84.3}

As the inhabitants of these worlds see the great price that has been paid to ransom man, they are filled with amazement. {Mar 368.2} Every man and woman has had the ransom money paid by Jesus Christ. "Ye are not your own. For ye are bought with a price"--even the precious blood of the Son of God. {OHC 42.2} Christ prepared the way for the ransom of man by His own life of suffering, self-denial, and self-sacrifice, and by His humiliation and final death. {3T 372.1}

Satan is bidding for the purchase of Christ's blood and buying them cheap, notwithstanding the infinite price which has been paid to ransom them. {5T 133.4} You have been bought with a price, even with the precious blood of Christ; you are His property, therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. {TMK 59.4} Christ has made a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of justice. What a price for Heaven to pay to ransom the transgressor of the law of Jehovah. Yet that holy law could not be maintained with any smaller price. {UL 378.4}

"Know ye not that . . . ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price." 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20. What a price has been paid for us! Behold the cross, and the Victim uplifted upon it. Look at those hands, pierced with the cruel nails. Look at His feet, fastened with spikes to the tree. Christ bore our sins in His own body. That suffering, that agony, is the price of your redemption. The word of command was given: "Deliver them from going down to perish eternally. I have found a ransom." {6T 479.2}

T: Also, why do you think the Holy Spirit didn't bother with the death of Christ in Scripture? It's several thousand pages, after all. That seems like a pretty big oversight.

I think the expression “doesn’t make sense” means something else to me than it does to you. I am using it to convey the idea that I cannot explain how or why God does certain things. For example, I cannot explain how Jesus became a human being.

What I am saying is one of the reasons why Jesus had to die was because law and justice require death in consequence of sin. Someone must die in consequence of sin. Just because sinners are pardoned and cease sinning it does not mean the death sentence can simply be annulled (canceled, repealed, rescinded). The part I don’t understand is how and why God can credit to my account Jesus’ death and righteousness and treat me as if I never sinned.

T: Read GC's explanation carefully, and hopefully that will help! I have other things I could send your way on this matter too, if you're interested.

M:I’m pretty sure GC and I agree on the penal substitution view. Are you asking me to study something he wrote in particular? If so, please repost it here. Thank you.

Jesus paid the price that we cannot pay.

As you can see there is no shortage of testimonies regarding the price paid to redeem sinners. The price required is punishment followed by eternal death. This is the price Jesus paid on our behalf. Sinners who refuse to be ransomed must pay their own price at the end of time. Again, the price for sinning is punishment and death.

T: Also, why do you think the Holy Spirit didn't bother with the death of Christ in Scripture? It's several thousand pages, after all. That seems like a pretty big oversight.

M:Yes, I agree. It is amazing that nowhere in the Bible is it clearly explained why Jesus had to die.

M: I think the expression “doesn’t make sense” means something else to me than it does to you. I am using it to convey the idea that I cannot explain how or why God does certain things. For example, I cannot explain how Jesus became a human being.

T: No, this isn't the sense you use it. In this sense, of course there are things we cannot explain. We cannot understand how it is that God had no beginning, or how God could become a human being, or the Godhead, or the enormity of God's love for us. This isn't what you were saying, however, nor what I was referring to.

You use the expression in dealing with things God does, saying "for reasons that make sense to Him." Also, in terms of the atonement, you described a system which you said was not valid (your words) and said it didn't make sense to you why this should save us. This is what I'm talking about. This kind of "does not make sense to me" is dangerous.

M: What I am saying is one of the reasons why Jesus had to die was because law and justice require death in consequence of sin. Someone must die in consequence of sin. Just because sinners are pardoned and cease sinning it does not mean the death sentence can simply be annulled (canceled, repealed, rescinded). The part I don’t understand is how and why God can credit to my account Jesus’ death and righteousness and treat me as if I never sinned.

T: Your whole paradigm is, from my perspective, arbitrary in nature, which is evident by the way you phrase things. For example, you speak of death happening because the law requires it, as opposed to being "the inevitable result of sin." You see no organic relationship between sin and death, and everything falls apart from there. If you see no relationship between sin and death, you have no choice but to see the atonement, the plan of salvation, the vindication of God's throne, the judgment, the destruction of the wicked, as being arbitrary; you can't avoid it. Your paradigm forces you to do so.

T: On the other hand, if death is the inevitable result of sin, then it's easy to see that God, being love, would do everything possible to free man from sin. The atonement is God's way of freeing man from sin. The Plan of Salvation, the vindication of God's throne, comes about as a result of demonstrating Satan's true character in contrast with His own, and the effects of sin. Everything ties together.

T: Satan's method of enslavement is by misrepresenting God's character. Not understanding that death is the result of sin may be a start in that direction.

T: Read GC's explanation carefully, and hopefully that will help! I have other things I could send your way on this matter too, if you're interested.

M: I’m pretty sure GC and I agree on the penal substitution view. Are you asking me to study something he wrote in particular? If so, please repost it here. Thank you.

T: Yes, read what he said about the law and love. It's on this thread. He doesn't seem to view law in the arbitrary way you do, so it seems inevitable to me that his view of penal substitution would have to be quite different than yours.

M: Jesus paid the price that we cannot pay.

T: Obviously we could not die the second death, which is the result of sin (or the penalty of the law). Christ, being God, was able to overcome death by His life.

M: As you can see there is no shortage of testimonies regarding the price paid to redeem sinners. The price required is punishment followed by eternal death. This is the price Jesus paid on our behalf. Sinners who refuse to be ransomed must pay their own price at the end of time. Again, the price for sinning is punishment and death.

T: MM, I've never disagreed that Christ paid the price to redeem us. In fact, I've equated it with the second death, so I'm more consistent on this than you are, since you, on the one hand, say that Christ paid the price, which is the penalty of the law (the second death) but then deny that Christ experienced the second death!

T: What I've disagreed with is the *reason* you ascribe to Christ's paying this price. You see this primarily in terms of His earning a legal right or satisfying a legal requirement, enabling God to do something He otherwise would not or could not do, whereas I see Christ's paying this price in order to save man by bringing him to God, and revealing His character, goodness and love, as well as eternally securing the universe, bringing the Great Controversy to an end, and vindicating God's character.

It's astounding to me that a Christian would think that Ellen White's words are clearer than Christ's. I can only imagine how she would have responded to such an idea.