Jesus was able to ask God to forgive them because He was spilling His blood for them. It is the perfect life and death of Jesus that gives God the right to forgive sinners.

What gives God the right to pardon sins is that He is God. Remember that God offered to pardon Lucifer time and time again, yet Christ had not died. Therefore God is not dependent upon the death of Christ in order to forgive.

We are the dependent ones! Not God.

Tom:We need the peace of mind that comes from knowing that we cannot, by ignorance, sin God away, so to speak.

MM:True. It is the perfect life and death of Jesus that gives us such assurance, blessed assurance.

PS - Are you going to address the first and last parts of my previous post? You left it out in this post.

You asked to address the part in red, which is what I just addressed above, and now this, which asks me if I'm going to address what you wrote!

Regarding the first part, I'd have to go back over my original post, and remember my train of thought, and I don't have time to do that right now. Probably we've already covered the point by now I wanted to make anyway.

Yes, shes is speaking of two different things. However, I think there is a common principle - God cannot excuse sin. He can pardon it, He can wink at it, but He cannot excuse it.

To excuse is to pardon, as I was using the word. If someone steps on your toe, you may excuse, or pardon, them. Same thing. What you are addressing is something different, which I didn't bring up, which is the idea that sin is OK; excuse in that sense. Of course no one is saying that.

Also, I agree with you that the cross influences us morally to love God and to obey His commandments. However, there is more to it. Someone must die for the sins we commit, must pay our sin debt, must suffer our punishment.

There's the question of what this means. If it were a forensic problem, then Christ would have had to die in order for Lucifer to be forgiven just as much as man. Yet God offered Lucifer pardon many times, without Christ having died. So the issue is not forensic. It has to be something that involves human beings specifically.

I'd like to mention why I enjoy dialogging with you. You are very persistent, which allows one to really dig into things. So often the conversations are so short, just a couple of things back and forth, and it's hard to get much out of that. These are deep issues, and it takes time to get to the bottom of things. So I appreciate your willingness to keep discussing something.

I know some observers may think that nothing is happening, that we just keep repeating the same things, but I've had an insight just recently that I hadn't seen so clearly, and I doubt I would have (at least, not for some time) without this discussion. The insight is that how we view foreknowledge is logically connected to how we view the atonement, and vice versa.

MM: "As long as we are willing to do His will, at the right time God will reveal light, as we need it." Amen!


Are you agreeing with me, then, that God requires blood sacrifices for sins of ignorance before and after we realize we are sinning? If so, how, then can you say God excuses sins of ignorance before we realize we are sinning?


Are you agreeing with me, then, that it is optional, that God wouldn't expect it if we didn't demand it, that blood sacrifices are not require to heal us, to atone for our sins?


But the record doesn't reflect what you believe. It reveals God commanding blood sacrifices to atone for sin. Nowhere does it imply God was simply giving us what we subconsciously demanded.

Are you agreeing with me, then, that God requires blood sacrifices for sins of ignorance before and after we realize we are sinning? If so, how, then can you say God excuses sins of ignorance before we realize we are sinning?

If God required sacrifices for sins of ignorance, then He would have required it for Lucifer, right? (It is your position that Lucifer was sinning ignorantly until his final decision, correct?).

I don't see what sense it would make for God to require a sacrifice for something someone did that they didn't know was wrong. After a person discovered there error, then they were to confess their sin and bring a sacrifice. God is interested in intelligent worship. A confession of things we did that we have no knowledge of their being wrong is not intelligent worship.

Are you agreeing with me, then, that it is optional, that God wouldn't expect it if we didn't demand it, that blood sacrifices are not require to heal us, to atone for our sins?

I think your question here is very confusing. I can't say I agree with this, for that reason. I wrote at length before. I think what I wrote was clear. I agree with what I wrote.

But the record doesn't reflect what you believe. It reveals God commanding blood sacrifices to atone for sin.

What I've been presenting is what atonement is. It is "at-one-ment." The sacrifices were necessary for atonement. This is true. But this does not mean they were necessary to placate God, or something like that.



Nowhere does it imply God was simply giving us what we subconsciously demanded.

I haven't said anything at all like this. How is it that you are jumping from what I wrote to something altogether different? Perhaps you could give some sort of thought process, how you got from what I wrote to what you're asking about, because without some understanding of your thought process, I really don't have any way to respond. It's like I write something like, "On sunny days it's nice to go for a walk," and you respond, "Nowhere does it imply that the sky is purple."

MM: I think it was Rosangela who believes Lucifer was guilty of sinning ignorantly before he chose to rebel openly. I do not believe he was guilty of sinning ignorantly. Instead, I believe he was wrestling with weird thoughts and feelings, things he was unfamiliar with. As such, he was innocent of wrongdoing.

Sinning is not excusable. And, once Lucifer launched into open rebellion, the instant he was guilty of sinning, atonement was impossible. "But no provision had been made to save those [angels] who should venture to transgress His law." (SR 18)

The morning and evening continual burnt sacrifice atoned for sins of ignorance, the sins people committed before they realized they were sinning. Other sacrifices applied once they became aware of the fact they were sinning ignorantly. They were no sacrifices for willful sinning. People were either stoned or excommunicated.


MM: Clear to you, no doubt, because you know exactly what you think about it. But it wasn't clear to me, which is why I asked you to clarify further. I'll rephrase the question, hopefully it will help.

Why did God require the death of Jesus? Was it to atone for our sins? Or, was it the only way God could get it through our sin darkened and deceived minds that He is loving and trustworthy? Or, both?


MM: I was referring to your idea that it was we who required the death of Jesus to make atonement for our sins, that God was merely giving in to our demands. The biblical record doesn't reflect this idea.

"But this does not mean they were necessary to placate God, or something like that." What does it mean, then? Why was the death of Jesus necessary to atone for our sins? What do the following inspired insights mean to you?

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}


MM: Now that you have made it clear you do not agree with my comment, please take a minute to explain why you believe we, not God, demanded the death of Jesus to atone for our sins. Thank you.

MM: I think it was Rosangela who believes Lucifer was guilty of sinning ignorantly before he chose to rebel openly. I do not believe he was guilty of sinning ignorantly. Instead, I believe he was wrestling with weird thoughts and feelings, things he was unfamiliar with. As such, he was innocent of wrongdoing.

According to the Spirit of Prophecy, Lucifer was guilty of sin:



Sinning is not excusable. And, once Lucifer launched into open rebellion, the instant he was guilty of sinning, atonement was impossible.

I've never seen the sense of your idea. We are told that Lucifer was offerred pardon again and again. It is those who sin that need pardon. You would have God offerring Lucifer pardon as long as he didn't need it, but as soon as he really needed it, no offer of pardon would be forthcoming. This doesn't strike you as odd?

At any rate, Lucifer was sinning before his final rebellion, which simply reading the record of what he was doing should make clear, but in addition to that there's the SOP statement saying as much. If you continue to read page 319, it is clear that Satan did not rebel until long after the opportunity was given to confess his sin. So Lucifer was guilty of sin long before he rebelled.


"But no provision had been made to save those [angels] who should venture to transgress His law." (SR 18)

There is no salvation in transgression for either man or angel. But God will restore one who repents, whether man or angel, just as we are told that again and again Lucifer was offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission.

The morning and evening continual burnt sacrifice atoned for sins of ignorance, the sins people committed before they realized they were sinning.

First of all, how could atonement possibly take place if the one needing the atonement is unaware he's done anything wrong? The very first step is the offending party must be made aware of his error. This is just common sense.

Let's say, for example, you are bothering me be some expression you use as we are dialogging. This is upsetting me, so that our relationship is damaged. How can are relationship be fixed unless I make you aware of the thing you are doing which is causing the problem?

Secondly, the research I did dealing with the meaning of this ceremony is that it symbolized continual consecration and dependence upon God. Where do you get the idea that is was for sins one is commiting of which one is unaware?

Thirdly, here is a quote from the Spirit of Prophecy which presents the idea I've been sharing.



Other sacrifices applied once they became aware of the fact they were sinning ignorantly. They were no sacrifices for willful sinning. People were either stoned or excommunicated.

I'm a bit surprised you would make a statement like this, MM. The law is full of provisions for sin not done ignorantly which does not involve stoning or excommunication. I could quote pages and pages demonstrating this. Here's just a small sampling.



Quote:
MM: Are you agreeing with me, then, that it is optional, that God wouldn't expect it if we didn't demand it, that blood sacrifices are not require to heal us, to atone for our sins?

TE: I think your question here is very confusing. I can't say I agree with this, for that reason. I wrote at length before. I think what I wrote was clear. I agree with what I wrote. \:\)

MM: Clear to you, no doubt, because you know exactly what you think about it. But it wasn't clear to me, which is why I asked you to clarify further. I'll rephrase the question, hopefully it will help.

Why did God require the death of Jesus? Was it to atone for our sins? Or, was it the only way God could get it through our sin darkened and deceived minds that He is loving and trustworthy? Or, both?

Both. But bear in mind that atonement means "at-one-ment." It is a way to bring us to God, as Peter puts it. Our sin has estranged us from God, so God did what was necessary so we could be reconciled to Him. Not Him to us, but us to Him. Here's something from Waggoner on this.



Here's something from EGW:



I know you are fond of EGW, but you don't seem to be well acquainted with E. J. Waggoner, which I think you should be, given that EGW spoke so highly of him. She said that he could teach righteouness by faith better than she, and that he was given a message to convey, the message of righteousness by faith. I just though of mentioning it because it seems to me that it couldn't help but help you (or anyone) to better understand righteousness by faith.

Quote:
MM: But the record doesn't reflect what you believe. It reveals God commanding blood sacrifices to atone for sin.

TE: What I've been presenting is what atonement is. It is "at-one-ment." The sacrifices were necessary for atonement. This is true. But this does not mean they were necessary to placate God, or something like that.

Quote:
While God has desired to teach men that from His own love comes the Gift which reconciles them to Himself, the archenemy of mankind has endeavored to represent God as one who delights in their destruction. Thus the sacrifices and the ordinances designed of Heaven to reveal divine love have been perverted to serve as means whereby sinners have vainly hoped to propitiate, with gifts and good works, the wrath of an offended God.(PK 685, par. 2)

MM: I was referring to your idea that it was we who required the death of Jesus to make atonement for our sins, that God was merely giving in to our demands. The biblical record doesn't reflect this idea.

Giving in to our demands? Where did you get such an idea? I've never said anything like this.

I really don't understand where you get some of the ideas you get from what I write. I'm 100% positive I've never written anything to the effect that God was giving in to our demands.

"But this does not mean they were necessary to placate God, or something like that." What does it mean, then? Why was the death of Jesus necessary to atone for our sins? What do the following inspired insights mean to you?

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}

On this one I would ask why was it necessary for the death penalty to be executed. It says that justice demanded it. For you, I think this means it would not be just for God to forgive sin without death. But nowhere in Scripture is that idea present. There is a text which says that Christ gave His life a ransom for man, and a text that says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, but these texts do not say why.

That God does not need death in order to pardon is clear from what happened to Lucifer. Lucifer sinned, as seen in the above SOP quote, long before he rebelled. He was offered pardon again and again, on the condition of repentance.

That God does not need death in order to pardon is clear from the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. For example, in the parable of the prodigal son, we see the father forgiving sin without death. When Jesus was about to die, He revealed the heart of God, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

In addition to this idea not making sense, as I pointed out, it is not Scriptural. As Waggoner pointed out, the idea that God had to be propitiated in order to believe is an idea unwarranted in Scripture. The sacrifice comes from God, to propitiate us, the same point EGW makes in the PK statement.

Furthermore, the interpretation of sacrifice you are suggesting simply did not exist at the time of Paul's writings. There is nothing in contemporary literature that gives this penal idea to the meaning of the sacrifices. Given how people contemporary to Paul understood sacrifice, there's no way it could have had this penal idea, an idea which wasn't developed until a millineum later.

The Eastern Orthodox church, which broke off from the Catholic church before this idea was introduced, *still* does not have the penal idea.


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}

Quote:
MM: Nowhere does it imply God was simply giving us what we subconsciously demanded.

TE: I haven't said anything at all like this. How is it that you are jumping from what I wrote to something altogether different? Perhaps you could give some sort of thought process, how you got from what I wrote to what you're asking about, because without some understanding of your thought process, I really don't have any way to respond. It's like I write something like, "On sunny days it's nice to go for a walk," and you respond, "Nowhere does it imply that the sky is purple."

MM: Now that you have made it clear you do not agree with my comment, please take a minute to explain why you believe we, not God, demanded the death of Jesus to atone for our sins. Thank you.

I've written at great length about this in the past. In my other computer, which I hope before the end of the decade to have back up and running, I should have some things saved, but I don't have access to this now. I wrote a fair amount here above. This will have to suffice for now. Basically if you ask the question, what is the problem that needs to be fixed, and how does the sacrifice of Christ fix it, that leads to the answer. That the problem isn't penal is shown by how God handled Lucifer's case, as well as by the life and character of Jesus Christ, in addition to not being an historically viable position.

Keeping in mind that I haven't followed this thread closely, I would have to disagree with this sentiment. Most of the sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus were for sins of ignorance.

Lev 4:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD...

I can see the point of a broken relationship not needing to be fixed since there was no rebellion, but the fact remains that blood was required. That's why I don't think the "relationship paradigm" is complete. Leviticus is full of cases where blood was required even though there was no rebellion.

Tom, your comments above seem to indicate you believe God was willing to excuse Lucifer's "sin", that He was willing to pardon without requiring the death of Jesus. Is that right?

1.The sacrifices were required *after* the sin of ignorance became known. That is, at the time the sin of ignorance was being committed, the person committing the sin did not know he was doing wrong, and no sacrifices were required or offered. *After* the person became aware that he had been doing wrong, *then* the sacrifice for the sin of ignorance was required.

2.Blood was required, but the purpose of the blood was to fix the relationship. Once the relationship is fixed, then everything is OK. But the relationship could not be fixed without blood.

3.What is necessary to fix the relationship is repentance and submissions. This requires a knowledge of God's true character and of his love. Lucifer had these things, so God offered him pardon on the condition of repentance and submission. However man did not know the love of God, or His character, so it was necessary that God reveal these things to man.



The whole purpose of Christ's ministry was the revelation of God.

From the Spirit of Prophecy we read:



It looks to me like this is saying.

1.Lucifer was given an opportunity to confess his sin, which was long before his banishment from heaven.
2.Lucifer continued to sin, for a long time ("long was he retained in heaven").
3.God continued to offer him pardon.
4.Finally Lucifer made his final decision.

During all of this, there is no mention of Christ having to die. So it appears that Christ's death is not an arbitrary requirement God has (i.e. a requirement set up by His discretion), but is needed to meet a need that man has, which Satan did not have.

The following seems to agree with this assessment: