Neither have you explained what you mean by the word "lost". In what sense would Jesus have been "lost"? And, why do think it would have resulted in sinners being saved?


Law and justice demand death for sin. To justify saving sinners, therefore, Jesus had to first pay their sin debt of death. He had to suffer and die on their behalf as if He had committed their sins. Ellen wrote:

Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

Does God turn from justice in showing mercy to the sinner? No; God cannot dishonor His law by suffering it to be transgressed with impunity. Under the new covenant, perfect obedience is the condition of life. If the sinner repents and confesses his sins, he will find pardon. By Christ's sacrifice in his behalf, forgiveness is secured for him. Christ has satisfied the demands of the law for every repentant, believing sinner. {AG 138.4}


Being loving like Jesus reflects what the law commands.


Why, then, do you insist the love of God was not fully revealed until Jesus died on the cross? That man wasn't around when it was evident to the angels is irrelevant. The point is the love of God was fully revealed before the cross.

What's there to explain? You know what lost means.



Let's try it this way. Jesus was willing to be lost. Jesus took this risk in order that man might be saved. Had Jesus been lost, man would not have been saved. Man was saved because Jesus was willing to take the risk of being lost, although He was not actually lost, because He did not fail.



I wasn't addressing this. I was pointing out that Jesus Christ manifest the love of God in a way which was not specified by the Ten Commandments. There is no commandments which said that Christ, or anyone else, had to do the things which Jesus Christ did.

Here's some more examples. Jesus washed His disciples feet. No commandment required that He do this.

He did not condemn the woman caught in adultery. No law required Him to do so.

He forgave the paralytic. No commandment commanded Him to do so.



It's certainly in harmony with it, but that wasn't my point. I said, "T: It doesn't specify how this love should be manifest. The love of God wasn't fully known until Christ revealed it."



Where do you think it was fully revealed before the cross?



It is to man.



How does that help man?

"Had Jesus been lost, man would not have been saved." I agree.

"Man was saved because Jesus was willing to take the risk of being lost . . ." I disagree. Sinners are saved when they embrace Jesus as their personal Savior, who suffered and died on the cross in their place.


Yes, the law certainly demanded such things of Jesus. The law is all encompassing. It overlooks nothing. Had Jesus behaved any differently than He did, the law would have condemned Him.


Heaven.


It doesn't have to help man to be the truth. The truth existed before the creation of mankind. Also, for 4,000 years before the cross, mankind was more than able to love and obey God based on Jesus' heavenly revelation of love. Therefore, we have no advantage (as it pertains to life and godliness) that was not available to those who lived prior to Jesus' earthly revelation of love. Looking forward to Jesus' death on the cross and looking backwards to it yields the same effect and results. Perhaps those who actually lived and walked and talked with Jesus had an advantage not available to the rest of us.

??? Your last sentence in no way negates my point (in the first sentence above).

I think you still didn't understand what I said, that Christ was willing to be lost in order that man might be saved. This is straight from the Gethsemane passage I quoted. Also "Calvary" discusses this, and DA 131, the last paragraph.



It sounds like you don't believe in free will. That is, it sounds like you believe that a person, in order to not be condemned by the law, must act in some precise way. So person A cannot act any differently than person B. There's no room for personal expression in one's life.

Back to Christ for a moment, you say that "It overlooks nothing. Had Jesus behaved any differently than He did, the law would have condemned Him." So if Christ, at some point in time, had put His left sandal on first, as opposed to the right, the law would have condemned Him? I'm sure you would agree this is an absurd idea. You would say, I assume, that you only had moral decisions in mind. That begs the question as to what a moral decision is.

Let's consider some specific examples. Say Christ had not forgiven the paralytic, but left that to God to do. On what basis would the law have condemned Him?

Let's consider the woman caught in adultery. Suppose Christ had not declined to have her stoned. On what basis would the law have condemned Him?

Say Christ had not washed His disciples feet. On what basis would the law have condemned Him?

Tom, you didn't finish addressing my post.

In answer to your last three questions: Jesus would have been guilty of disobeying the will of God, which is in harmony with the requirements of the law.

I guess I didn't have anything else to say. I looked it over, and still don't.

I think it's rather interesting to look at things as the law being more important than God as far as the GC is concerned. I've never looked at it that way, even before, in the last several years, becoming more aware of the importance of God's character. I'm curious how this idea plays into the ideas you have regarding the atonement and the final judgment. They seem very related to me. I'm wondering what the chicken is here and what's the egg. For me, the chicken, so to speak, is God's character, and all the rest of my theology is derivable from that.

This is a great discussion. I appreciate all your comments.

I believe that many dimensions of God's love was reveal in Heaven, but, as Tom said, it was only "FULLY" reveal at the cross. At that point things changed in heaven, Satan was kicked out and not allowed to come up anymore. The whole controversy is not only to save man, but to save the whole universe.



Also another aspect to consider is that the 10 commandments is a "testimony" or "witness" to us all. That's really the meaning of it that God gaved to Moses. All of sudden, in these last generations it's meaning has become a "law". God intended it to be a testimony or a witness to us in showing us his character so we can see ourself and to convict us of our great constant needs of him.

Elle,

The Ten Commandments have multiple titles, and certainly "Testimony" is one of them. However, there are other terms by which God, Moses, and others referred to them. "Law" has been an appropriate term ever since God Himself used it in speaking of the Commandments with Moses.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm studying these words(Law,commandments,statues,etc..) to differentiate these, as we tend to englobe all these terms and define them as to the 10C, but in many of these passages they are refering to distinct writings.