Do you mean you think I'm too stupid to understand your leap of logic? Or that you didn't do a very good job of presenting it?

Your argument is circular, since you are assuming throughout it the very thing you are to prove! To prove you the legal framework you are suggesting is Scripture, you need to present an argument from Scripture! Not just present a series of steps which assumes your legal framework is valid.

When you speak of the law requiring death, do you have in mind the first or second death?



I would say he means the condemnation of the law (this is what Waggoner taught). Do you see this as meaning the same thing as what you said?



"Name" in Scripture means "character." "To believe on His name" means to accept His teachings. Where did Jesus teach what you are asserting?



This is certainly true. I don't disagree with this assertion, but with the reasoning behind it.

Here is a statement by EGW:



This brings out that man could be drawn back to God by a revelation of His character. This agrees with EGW's statement here:



The "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was the revelation of God's character for the purpose of setting man right with God, or bringing man to God, as Peter puts it.

Here is some background to the problem:



In order to win homage to himself, Satan misrepresented God's character. This is how man was deceived, and estranged from God. Thus in order for man to be reconciled, this deception must be undone. Hence the revelation of God was the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission.

Once we see the problem, it's easy to grasp the solution. The problem was man was deceived in regards to God's character and did not know His love. The solution was Jesus Christ!

Christ's death is part of the process "to set men right through the revelation of God." That is true.

Christ's death does nothing else but "to set men right through the revelation of God." That is not true. That's what I understood you meant when you said, "Christ's death was a part of His ministry. Therefore its whole purpose was to reveal God."

While I believe that it reveals God, I believe it reveals things about God that I only see in the penal substitution paradigm.

Here's what I said.



I asked if this is logically sound. It is, right?

I see you said, "Christ's death does nothing else but 'to set men right through the revelation of God.'" and made a comment about what you understood I was meaning, but I didn't say this. I'm asking if the logic about what I actually said is true. Let's see if we can agree on that first!

Listen:

UL 222
My spirit at times is triumphant in God. I see in prospect just before us the eternal weight of glory. We have not earned it. Oh, no, Jesus earned it for us and it is a free gift, not for any righteousness and goodness of our own. Let us, in the few probationary hours left us, walk humbly with God and do the work He has committed to our hands with fidelity. {UL 222.5}

1SM 309
What right had Christ to take the captives out of the enemy's hands?--The right of having made a sacrifice that satisfies the principles of justice by which the kingdom of heaven is governed. He came to this earth as the Redeemer of the lost race, to conquer the wily foe, and, by His steadfast allegiance to right, to save all who accept Him as their Saviour. On the cross of Calvary He paid the redemption price of the race. And thus He gained the right to take the captives from the grasp of the great deceiver, who, by a lie, framed against the government of God, caused the fall of man, and thus forfeited all claim to be called a loyal subject of God's glorious everlasting kingdom.

This says nothing about God earning the right to forgive sins. She is speaking in Christus Victor terms, especially the second quote.

Had Jesus not died on the cross He would have had no right to forgive penitent sinners. Otherwise, the human race would be the sin slaves and captives of Satan. That's what she is saying.

This is speaking about Satan's misrepresentation of God's character. Note, "the grasp of the great deceiver, who, by a lie, framed against the government of God," etc. Now the government of God relates to God's character, as it is governed by the law, which is a transcript of God's character.

EGW speaks of the same theme here:

Tom, your interpretation of these two clear cut quotes is unconvincing. She clearly and plainly says Jesus earned the right to forgive and save penitent sinners. She couldn't say it more clearly.

The second quote is Christus Victor. It's the same thing Scott has said many times.

bump