MM, your point is that since forgiveness for sin requires shedding of blood, (shedding of blood being the reference point) therefore if blood needed not to be shed it could not be sin. But the point of this discussion is whether forgiveness required shedding of blood.

1) The way you use the phrase “without shedding of blood is no remission” is outside of the scriptural ‘preposition’ of it.

2) Scripture plainly states that forgiveness/remission of sins is by repentance, without sacrifice.

Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Luk 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

In fact the reason why the Priests, Pharisees and Sadducees did not go out to be baptized of John, is because, it would have put them out of business. You see those that repented and were baptized of John did not have to go and make an offering as by the law. It was the baptism of repentance that served that purpose. Moreover, the sacrifices which were by the law, could not effect that forgiveness in the minds of the comers thereto. Baptism of repentance could.

John, when I wrote, “Neither Eve nor Lucifer was guilty of sinning when they believed God was unjust. It was not until they actually sinned that they became guilty of sinning”, I was referring to open rebellion. In the case of Eve, it was when she actually bit into the forbidden fruit. In the case of Lucifer, it was when he rejected God’s final call to repentance, when he committed himself to open rebellion.

quote:

---

I think that primarily the reason you say such things is because your preset ideas force you do so, and not because it makes any sense to you.

---

And, your point? What does what you think about what I think have anything to do with what we’re studying here? Why something makes sense to me doesn’t have anything to do with what we’re studying. Please, stick with the facts. Just present your case, and don’t bother trying to articulate why my ideas do not make sense to me. Thank you.

quote:

---

2) Scripture plainly states that forgiveness/remission of sins is by repentance, without sacrifice.

---

That’s not how I read it, John. "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.” (1SM 340)

As I see it, the blood of Jesus makes repentance possible and efficacious. “Repentance includes sorrow for sin and a turning away from it.” (SC 23) “Confession will not be acceptable to God without sincere repentance and reformation. There must be decided changes in the life; everything offensive to God must be put away.” (SC 39)

The blood of Jesus purchased for us the right of repentance.

Old Tom: If you make a falacious argument I should be able to point that out.

MM: Again, if you discover you cannot make your point without making those types of comments then we can discuss our options at that time. Deal?

Tom: I shouldn't be able to point out that a given argument is unreasonable or fallacious? Is this what you are saying?

I agree completely that I should not use language which is offensive to you. I don't wish to do this, and have asked for help in communicating in a way you find offensive. However, I cannot agree that this means I should not point out arguments which are in error.

Old Tom: You're contradicting yourself here because Sister White does say that Lucifer/Satan was intentionally misrepresenting God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation, which you agree is sin.

MM: We disagree on this point.

Tom: I asked if intentionally misrepresenting God's character for the purpose of self-exaltation was sin, and you said it was. So not you are disagreeing with yourself. I think you were correct before.

Old Tom: I agree with this, but Lucifer did not become Satan because of a single act.

MM: True, but the very second he crossed the line he was cast out of heaven.

Tom: That's simply not true. The Spirit of Prophesy points out that God bore long with Satan and tried many means to convince Satan of his error. She wrote we will be amazed at God's patience. The descriptions she gives do not jibe with your statement that the very second he crossed the line he was cast out of heaven.

MM: As you have so eloquently pointed out, the moment Lucifer crossed the line there was nothing more God could to woo and win him back. Love had nothing more to offer.

Tom: If by crossing the line you mean when Satan finally reached the point in his persistent rebellion and repeatedly and knowingly sinning while refusing God's many offers of pardon on the condition of repentance and forgiveness, then I agree.

Old Tom: The issue was not one of God not requiring blood for some reason, but of blood not availing.

MM: Blood wasn’t necessary before God offered to restore Lucifer because he hadn’t crossed the line yet, and, you’re right, blood wouldn’t have done any good after Lucifer became Satan because love had nothing more to offer him.

Tom: There's nothing magical in blood. It is not the literal blood that saves. The blood represents the life, and it is the life of Christ which saves. Satan already knew that life, but man did not. By a revelation of God's character, man could be brought back to God.

God was willing to do whatever necessary in order to save man, and to save Lucifer/Satan. God would have died for him if it would have done any good. It is because it wouldn't do any good that God didn't die for him. But God did offer to pardon him, "again and again"; and there was no blood involved.

Old Tom: There's not a verse in all of Scripture which states it is to satisfy some requirement of God's, or to appease His wrath, or to enable Him to forgive us. The reasons which are given deal with our being reconciled to God.

MM: If blood is not required to satisfy the demands of Justice (God), why, then, did God say, “Without shedding of blood is no remission”?

Tom: The statement "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin" does not address *why* the shedding of blood was necessary. That's the purpose of this thread. I gave a lengthly answer involving many Scriptures pointing out why. The why had to do with winning the Great Controversy, and bring us to God.

As I pointed out, there's not a verse in all of Scripture which states it is to satisfy some requirement of God's, or to appease His wrath, or to enable Him to forgive us. I take it you agree with this assertion of mine, since you didn't attempt to produce any.

MM: And why did Sister White say, "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"? (1SM 340)

Tom: This is unresponsive to my assertion, as it is not Scripture.

Regarding the Spirit of Prophesy statement I would say that what it does NOT mean is that God had an arbitrary requirement for blood in order to pardon us. This is evident by the fact that God was willing to pardon Lucifer/Satan without any blood being involved.

Justice demands obedience to the law, and that sin result in death. Christ accomplished both things. He perfectly obeyed the law, and when He was made to be sin for us, He died. It is certainly true that Christ died in our stead, and this is just.