Ikan, I don't mind responding to contructive posts. The way I used the word "executioner" does not contradict the fact God killed millions of people using floods, fires, famine, disease, war, etc., since the beginning of sin. Sin does not kill sinners, as evidenced by the fact sinners do not die when they sin. Sinning, not sin, causes death, but only becasue God refuses to give us access to the tree of life. But is that what causes the second death? No! The lake of fire is what causes the second death. See Rev 20:11-15.

Jesus shed His blood tasting and consuming and conquering the second death on the cross. Why? Because the wages of sin is death, and the legal demands of the law, and God, require death for sin. If Jesus hadn't paid the penalty for us, then all of us would have to die our own second death. But because Jesus conquered our sin and second death it His prerogative to place them upon Satan, who will die with them in the lake of fire.

Mike: I believe Jesus “shed His blood” on the cross, a metaphor that means Jesus died on the cross

Tom: Which is just what I said. Obviously I agree with this.

Mike: because God cannot justify forgiving us and saving us without it.

Tom: This is an odd way of putting it. God cannot forgive sin in such a way that does not result in man being brought back to harmony with God's law. If God's forgiveness of sin did not do that, then Satan's accuasations against God would be correct. However, God is God. He does not need to "justify" forgiving us, other than by demonstrating that His forgiveness has made us safe to save for eternity. He forgives us because it is His nature to forgive.

He forgave Satan (at first). Satan, even after persisting in rebellion for quite some time, could have returned to his station. It was only after Satan persisted in rebellion after he knew he was in the wrong that he was lost (could no longer be forgiven). If God could "justify" forgiving Satan, He could certainly "justify" forgiving us.

The issue which needs to be addressed is how man could be brought back to God. This could only be done by way of the cross.

Mike: The wages of sin is death, therefore, Jesus had to die our death

Tom: Right! Christ died our death, the second death. And there was not ball of fire which devoured Him.

Mike: to satisfy the holy and just claims of the law of sin and death, and to give God the legal right to forgive us and to save us.
Tom: God legally forgave us on the basis of Christ's death. The "legality" of the forgivenss is seen in that God forgives in such a way that His law is dishonored -- His forgiveness results in obedience to His law for all who receive it.

God's forgiveness was immediate. As soon as man sin, God forgave. Because God forgave, He provided Christ as a means of salvation. It was man who needed to be reconciled, not God. God so loved the world, He gave His Son.

Mike: So, the death of Jesus on the cross was very much real, and very much required.

Tom: No doubt about this. Without Christ's death, not a soul could so much as live physically, nor be saved eternally, nor overcome a single temptation.

Mike: Without it, God has no legal right to forgive us or to save us.

Tom: Again, this is oddly stated. It sounds like putting God subservient to His law.

Mike: God cannot disregard our sin, or ignore the law, and save us anyhow, just because He’s a nice guy, a loving and merciful Father.

Tom: Right. If God were to take men to heaven without their characters being changed, they would be miserable. They would long to flee from heaven. Plus God's glory would destroy them, since God is a consuming fire wherever sin is found. So God must provide a means to eliminate sin from those who would spend eternity with Him. The only way possible to do this was through the cross.

Mike: Such a thing would implicate God.

Tom: Not only would it implicate Him, it wouldn't work. It would result in the destruction of those He would save.

Mike: It would make Him lawless and arbitrary, which would put the whole universe in peril, and jeopardize the eternal security of free moral agents. No one would be able to completely trust God, because there would be no standard or guideline to regulate right and wrong, or what could be expected of God. Uncertainty, fear and chaos would replace law and order.

Tom: Yes, since it would result in the death of those God would save, that would certainly put God in a bad light.

Mike: I see two laws at work. You sin, you suffer.

Tom: It's true that sin produces suffering, but the Biblical teaching is: "You sin, you die."

Mike: That's the first law. You refuse to abide in Jesus, you choose to be punished and killed in the lake of fire. That's the other law.

Tom: If you resist the grace of God, you would be miserable in heaven, so God could not take you there. All those who choose to separate themselves from God will receive the results of that choice. Those who cling to sin will be destroyed because God is a consuming fire wherever sin is found. They will be destroyed by the glory of God.

quote:

---

To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. (DA 107)

---

God offered to reinstate Satan, before he sinned against God, before his questions and concerns led him to open rebellion. Our heavenly Father doesn’t mind us asking questions, so long as they don't lead us to rebel against Him.

Yes, it is in God’s nature to forgive, but it is not in the law’s nature to forgive. God cannot ignore the holy and just claims of the law. He cannot offer us forgiveness and salvation without first satisfying the demands of the law – the punishment for sinning is death, burning according to our sinfulness in the lake of fire.

Jesus didn’t die our second death, rather He tasted and consumed and conquered it on our behalf. Satan, as our scapegoat, will die our second death, with our sins, in the lake of fire. Jesus demonstrated the experience of the 144,000 drinking the cup of trembling, which is why it didn’t involve hell fire and brimstone. Satan, on the other hand, is an example of the unsaved drinking the cup of trembling in the lake of fire. See Isa 51.17-23.

God cannot forgive us until we repent and forsake our sins. It is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance and salvation. The law requires the immediate death of sinners, or the immediate substitutionary death of the Son of God, before the legal demands of the law can be satisfied. God established the law, and He abides by it, which doesn’t make Him subservient.

Not only can God not take us to heaven without perfect characters, first He had to satisfy the holy and just demands of the law, which He accomplished through the life and death of Jesus, and all this before He could even offer us a means whereby we can imitate the example of Jesus. You seem to be undermining the reason why Jesus had to die. And you seem to be mixing two separate aspects of salvation. Your idea appears to put the cart before the horse, making salvation available even before Jesus satisfied the holy and just demands of the law by paying our penalty, by tasting death for us.

I hear you saying, the reason why Jesus had to die is because we needed to see how bad sin really is before we could be motivated to turn to God for the power to quit sinning, to live in harmony with the law. Yes, the death of Jesus motivates us to hate sin enough to trust in His promises to set us free, but there is more to it than the moral influence and affect His death has upon us spiritually.

Jesus had to die for the simple reason that the holy and just demands of the law required it, otherwise, God could not legally justify forgiving our sins and waiving our death penalty. The death of Jesus was necessary first, before pardon and salvation could be made available. That's why Jesus is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev 13:8. To suggest that Jesus’ death wasn’t necessary for legal reasons, to satisfy the holy and just requirements of the law, undermines the law itself, the very foundation of God’s character and kingdom.

Mike: You wanted to label God and executioner, rather than a killer or murderer.
EGW says "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but he leaves the rejecters of his mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown" {GC88 36.2}

Why you would consider her remark posted by me as as not being "constructive" is very puzzling.

No one is under any obligation to answer anyone here, but if anyone is to be trusted, answering questions directly and admitting goofs is...well..basic christian courtesy, no?

Mark: I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean: can you fill in a bit, please.

Mike: God offered to reinstate Satan, before he sinned against God, before his questions and concerns led him to open rebellion. Our heavenly Father doesn’t mind us asking questions, so long as they don't lead us to rebel against Him.

Tom: Yes, asking questions reverantly is good. It is vital that we understand the issues of the Great Controversy.

Mike: Yes, it is in God’s nature to forgive, but it is not in the law’s nature to forgive.

Tom: This doesn't make sense. The law is not a sentient being. It can't "forgive." Only sentient beings can forgive. I suppose what you write as a figure of speech is OK, assuming you mean that the law has no provision for disobeying it.

Mike: God cannot ignore the holy and just claims of the law.

Tom: Right. He doesn't do this. He forgives those who believe in Him in such a way that they are brought into harmony with His law.

Mike: He cannot offer us forgiveness and salvation without first satisfying the demands of the law

Tom: God forgives us and on the basis of that forgiveness we live. Please see FW 21, 22. This is also evident by God's actions in the Garden of Eden.

Actually you can't separate these actions in terms of time. Because God so loved the world, He forgave the world and gave it His son. Everything goes together. God is love and out of love flows the Plan of Salvation.

Mike: – the punishment for sinning is death,

Tom: right!

Mike: burning according to our sinfulness in the lake of fire.

Tom: Oops! Or maybe OK, if you undestand fire like this:

quote:

---

By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

---

Mike: Jesus didn’t die our second death

Tom: You just said in the preceeding post that Jesus "died our death." Was that wrong?

Mike: , rather He tasted and consumed and conquered it on our behalf. Satan, as our scapegoat, will die our second death, with our sins, in the lake of fire. Jesus demonstrated the experience of the 144,000 drinking the cup of trembling, which is why it didn’t involve hell fire and brimstone. Satan, on the other hand, is an example of the unsaved drinking the cup of trembling in the lake of fire. See Isa 51.17-23.

God cannot forgive us until we repent and forsake our sins.

Tom: There is a corporate forgiveness and the forgiveness which takes place when the sinner is justified. God corporately forgave the human race, which is why all of us live physically. Please see FW 21, 22.

Mike: It is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance and salvation.

Tom: Amen!

Mike: The law requires the immediate death of sinners, or the immediate substitutionary death of the Son of God, before the legal demands of the law can be satisfied. God established the law, and He abides by it, which doesn’t make Him subservient.

Tom: Yes, the legal demands of the law were met for the entire human race. Please see FW 21, 22.

Mike: Not only can God not take us to heaven without perfect characters, first He had to satisfy the holy and just demands of the law, which He accomplished through the life and death of Jesus, and all this before He could even offer us a means whereby we can imitate the example of Jesus. You seem to be undermining the reason why Jesus had to die.

Tom: Not at all. Please see FW 21, 22. Also Romans 5:18, 2 Cor. 5:14, 19, 20; 1 John 2:2; Isa. 44:22; 1 Tim. 4:10; John 4:42

Mike: And you seem to be mixing two separate aspects of salvation. Your idea appears to put the cart before the horse, making salvation available even before Jesus satisfied the holy and just demands of the law by paying our penalty, by tasting death for us.

Tom: I'd say you're putting the cart before the horse, and you haven't correctly identified them. The horse is God's character. God is love, and because He is love, He forgives and provides the Plan of Salvation. It was because of His love that He met in Christ the demands of the law.

Mike: I hear you saying, the reason why Jesus had to die is because we needed to see how bad sin really is before we could be motivated to turn to God for the power to quit sinning, to live in harmony with the law.

Tom: That's a reason why Jesus had to die. We'll be studying why Jesus had to die throughout eternity. Far be it from me to say that's the reason.

Mike: Yes, the death of Jesus motivates us to hate sin enough to trust in His promises to set us free, but there is more to it than the moral influence and affect His death has upon us spiritually.

Tom: I've never said otherwise. Never.

Mike: Jesus had to die for the simple reason that the holy and just demands of the law required it, otherwise, God could not legally justify forgiving our sins and waiving our death penalty. The death of Jesus was necessary first, before pardon and salvation could be made available. That's why Jesus is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev 13:8. To suggest that Jesus’ death wasn’t necessary for legal reasons, to satisfy the holy and just requirements of the law, undermines the law itself, the very foundation of God’s character and kingdom.

Tom: You're not dealing with the real issues, at least not the difficult ones. It's very easy for God to forgive man. God is love. It is His nature to forgive. The difficult thing for God to do was to win man's heart, to undo the damage that Satan had causes to man's sould by unbelief. How can man be led to learn the truth about God? That God is kind, gracious, compassionate, a supreme regarder of freedom, and not the arbitrary taskmaster that Satan had made Him out to be.

Tom, I probably should have worded some things differently. The blood of the OT sacrifices was symbolic of the blood, life and death of Christ. In that sense, the blood of animals is symbolic. The blood of Christ is not. The point I was making about the life and death of Christ is that His blood embraces both aspects of His sacrifice. What some Adventists have recently concluded is that the substitutionary nature of His death is a heathen notion. However the scripture testifies to this truth as a central pillar in the plan of salvation. The doctrine regarding the reality of the power of the blood of Christ and it’s central place in the cleansing of the sanctuary are a complete answer to those who would do away with the substitionary nature of the Atonement.

Today, following the example and instruction of Christ, we drink the wine of the Lord’s Supper, a symbol of His blood. Why would Christ institute this central worship service of the church based on a symbol that itself only refers to another symbol? A principle of interpretation of the scriptures is that we are to take the most direct and simple application of the text as the true intent of the Spirit. Here, the wine is not a symbol of something that is merely another symbol, but the wine is in fact a symbol of the true cleansing agent – the blood of Christ.

Regarding the sovereignty of God and the punishment of the wicked, notice that in the same paragraph that Sister White says God is not the executioner, He is still the sovereign Justice who meets out the punishment of the wicked.

quote:

---

The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace, and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin, and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty." {GC88 36.2}

---

Just for a clearification, there have been unfair rumors that says that many in Adventist have come to no longer believe in the sacrificial and substitutionary aspects of Jesus death. This is not correct. It comes from theologians who are mostly familiar with the two views of Atonement that were developed in the 1200s, the forensic view and the moral influence theory, and they feel that if you are not teaching the one, you must, by default, be teaching the other. This is a narrow approach to the problem and it is incorrect.

I discussed and gave short discriptions in another thread here that there have actually been four major theories of atonement in Church history. The Pelican theory, the Bate Theory (which became the major theory for about a thousand years) then the bate theory was replaced by the forensic and moral influence views.

Both the Moral Influence and Forensic views were based on the understanding of hell at the time. The Moral Influence theory had too many left over parts from the evidence of scripture: things such as substitutionary sacrifice. Meanwhile the Forensic view included most of these left over parts, but again viewed these parts from the theological ideas of the 1200s, including the view of hell believed at that time.

The developing views in Adventistm are a new attempt to try to include what we have learned in the years since 1200, from people such as Luther, Wesley and especially Ellen White, and based on how we understand Mrs. White to teach about hell, yet we also try to include all the elements just as the Forensic view tried to do (Yes, INCLUDING the substitutionary sacrifice, which we DO NOT SEE AS HEATHEN). Therefore while we have ellememts in common with the different classical views, these new views are not one of the old classical views. Now if we were to compare these new attempts to the four classic attempts to discribe the atonement, it would probably be most comparable to the Pelican view, (NOT the Moral Influence view) but also is an entirely new approach. The consept of reasoning "We have two views of the Atonement, the forensic view and the moral influence view, you have to teach one or the other, and since you are not teaching the one, that means that you are teaching the other, and look at the problems with this other view." is an incorrect assessment.

[ December 11, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Kevin H ]

Tom, I believe Jesus tasted, consumed and conquered our sin and second death on the cross, before He voluntarily laid down His life. He died the first death and was resurrected with a glorified body - just like the righteous who die the first death and will be resurrected with glorified bodies. Jesus is an example for the saved, not the unsaved. Satan is an example for the unsaved. Like him, the unsaved will drink the cup of trembling in the lake of fire and die with their sins.

How does the blood of Jesus, the substitutionary death of Jesus, make forgiveness and salvation possible and available?

Since the penalty for sinning is punishment and destruction in the lake of fire, since the law demands the punishment and destruction of sinners in the lake of fire, since the law cannot be ignored, placated or appeased, since the law cannot forgive sinners, and since God is a law abiding citizen, it was necessary and required that Jesus taste the second death on our behalf.

Nothing but punishment and death can satisfy the just and holy demands of the law. Death by itself is not enough. If it were, then there would be no need for the second resurrection. Sinners must also be punished for refusing to abide in Jesus. Why? I don't know. But I do know death is the only way to eradicate the sin problem, the only way to rid the universe of the presence and existence of sin. The equation is simple - No sinners, no sin. We can either die to sin, or die with sin. The choice is ours.

When we die to sin, the law credits the death of Jesus to our account. It also takes into consideration the fact Satan will someday die our second death, with our sins, in the lake of fire. Both are required to satisfy the law, that is, Jesus had to conquer our sins and second death on the cross, and then He must ransfer them to Satan, who must die our second death, with our sins, in order to satisfy the law.

But just exactly how does Jesus' victory over our second death, and Satan's death in the lake of fire, satisfy the just and holy demands of the law? The law, after all, doesn't make any allowances for a substitutionary payment. The law requires that the sinner himself pay his own sin debt. No earthly court would allow an innocent person to die in the place of a convicted criminal. Substitution doesn't satisfy justice, nor does it eliminate the sin problem, or make society a safe place. So, how does Jesus’ experience on the cross satisfy the law? From a legal point of view it doesn’t make sense. If it were merely a matter of money, of financial debt, then it would make sense. But were talking about an offence punishable by death.

I do not believe it is possible to answer this question. I do not believe it is possible to explain how and why Jesus’ experience on the cross, why His death and resurrection and mediation, satisfies the holy and just requirements of the law. But just because I cannot explain it does not mean I disbelieve it or doubt its legal standing. Nor will I attempt to explain it in such a way that diminishes the reason why Jesus had to drink the cup of trembling on our behalf. Somehow, some way, Jesus paid my sin debt on the cross, and for that, I am thankful - eternally thankful, I hope and pray.

Jesus suffered the 2nd death on the cross; actually the combined 2nd deaths of all humans who ever lived or will live.

I haven't studied the various views of how Christ saves us, and until your post Kevin didn't know anything about how some theologians have categorized the different views.

I do know that there are now quite a number of Adventists who have rejected the vicarious/substitionary death of Christ. I'm glad you don't hold the same belief Kevin.

In addition to asking Tom and Stacie to clarify whether they believe the heavenly sanctuary is real or is a metaphor I'd also like them to plainly say whether they believe in the substitutionary death of Christ. Let's be open and honest with each other regarding our positions.