TE: ... how do you interpret that sins of ignorance do not incur the frown of God.

MM: To me it means God does not us accountable or count us guilty when we sin inn ignorance. The reason He can do this, in light of the GC, is due to the fact Jesus shed His blood to atone for sins of ignorance.

TE: In Romans it speaks of God's winking at sin in times of ignorance, doesn't it?

MM: Yes, but for the same reasons mentioned above.

TE: At any rate, you're going to have to define what you mean by "excuse sin," because if you mean "treat sin as something of no import" or "consider sin as something that has an excuse" then the answer is no, the sin is not excusable.

MM: I agree. Sins of ignorance are not "something that has an excuse ... something of no import". God takes all sinning seriously, and labors patiently to set us free. The shed blood of Jesus affords Him this legal luxury.

TE: If, on the other hand, you mean excuse as in, I do something wrong to you inadvertently, and say, "Oh, I'm sorry. Please excuse me." and you say, "No problem, you're excused" then the answer is yes.

MM: If you are implying this is how God handles sins of ignorance, then I disagree. God does not simply say, after the fact, "No problem, you're excused." Instead, He also requires a sacrifice, the shed blood of Jesus. The law is clear.

TE: ... how do you interpret that sins of ignorance do not incur the frown of God.

MM: To me it means God does not us accountable or count us guilty when we sin inn ignorance.

This makes sense to me.

The reason He can do this, in light of the GC, is due to the fact Jesus shed His blood to atone for sins of ignorance.

I don't understand this. The Spirit of Prophecy said, "When there is no light, there is no sin." I don't see how this statement is in any dependent upon Christ's death. Even if Christ had not died, there would be no sin without light, no frown of God, no condemnation, correct?

TE: In Romans it speaks of God's winking at sin in times of ignorance, doesn't it?

MM: Yes, but for the same reasons mentioned above.

TE: At any rate, you're going to have to define what you mean by "excuse sin," because if you mean "treat sin as something of no import" or "consider sin as something that has an excuse" then the answer is no, the sin is not excusable.

MM: I agree. Sins of ignorance are not "something that has an excuse ... something of no import". God takes all sinning seriously, and labors patiently to set us free.

I agree with this.

The shed blood of Jesus affords Him this legal luxury.

I have no idea where you get this idea from. God has the right to forgive Whom He pleases, doesn't He? Remember He offered Lucifer pardon, without Christ's having died.

TE: If, on the other hand, you mean excuse as in, I do something wrong to you inadvertently, and say, "Oh, I'm sorry. Please excuse me." and you say, "No problem, you're excused" then the answer is yes.

MM: If you are implying this is how God handles sins of ignorance, then I disagree.

I think what I wrote was very clearly trying to get at what you meant by "excused".

God does not simply say, after the fact, "No problem, you're excused." Instead, He also requires a sacrifice, the shed blood of Jesus. The law is clear.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Remember that Lucifer was offered pardon without Christ's death.

Consider the parables Christ taught. In the parable of the prodigal son, the idea that the Father required something in order to forgive his son just doesn't fit. Many other parables taught the same truth, that God freely forgives.

In fact, in all of Jesus' teaching, where is there even a hint that Christ had to die in order for God to forgive us? Where did Jesus Christ teach such an idea?

When Jesus was about to die, He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." This is a revelation of the Father's heart. Not requiring eye for eye and tooth for tooth, but turning the other cheek, giving all that He has, for the good of man.

MM: The only reason God was able to grant mankind probation is because Jesus volunteered to die in their place. His death atones for all sins, known and unknown. God cannot, in light of Satan's accusations, simply pardon unknown sins. True, He can withhold condemnation, but only because Jesus paid the sin debt.

SR 45
The transgression was so great that an angel's life would not pay the debt. Nothing but the death and intercessions of His Son would pay the debt and save lost man from hopeless sorrow and misery." {SR 45.1}


MM: On this we disagree.


MM: Again, we disagree as to how these insights apply to why Jesus had to die.

I understand that we disagree regarding why Jesus had to die, but if you disagree with my statement here:



could you offer some reason why? That is, if you disagree that Jesus did not teach that He had to die in order for God to forgive us, would you please point out some place where Jesus taught this?

Jesus taught it all throughout the OT. He is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." The entire sacrificial system, which He instituted, taught it. The fact He died on the cross teaches it. Jesus had to die in our place because "Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed."

He had to die because in "the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin." The life of Jesus demonstrated "God is love". His life disproved Satan's accusations.

But it was the death of Jesus that satisfied the just and loving demands of the law - "death must come in consequence of man's sin". Someone must die in consequence of sinning, either the sinner or the Substitute.

In fact, in the end, it is Satan, the scapegoat, who dies with the sins of the saved in the lake of fire, which is the second death. Jesus died for our sins, but it is Satan who must die with our sins. It is Satan, not Jesus, who must die eternally with the sins of the saved.

AG 139
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}

1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7}