Tom, I thought we agreed to include the ongoing dialog each time we post a reply. I've been trying to do it as it makes things go faster, that is, we don't have to scroll back and forth to remember the context of the conversation. Lately you have been leaving out the ongoing dialog.

I've been including what I posted, and your most recent comment. If I include everything, the dialog will quickly become very large. I try to respond to everything you say, which sort of precludes my including all the comments leading up to that point, for reasons of space. Obviously, we can't keep including everything, as the posting will double with each additional post.

What's your suggestion on how to handle this?

MM: Are you saying God can and will pardon willful sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus so long as the sinner is capable of experiencing genuine repentance and submission? Where is the evidence to support it?

And, please, do not cite the SOP quotes you always post. They simply do not say what you say they say. Nowhere does she say God can or will pardon willful sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus. Your saying she does does not make it so. I'll believe it if inspiration plainly states it.

Also, Sister White's description of Lucifer's behavior, before he was guilty of willfully sinning, does not include the conclusion that he was guilty of willfully of sinning. You are taking unlicensed liberty in making a private interpretation, you are adding your own conclusion to the inspired account.

And, yes, God requires blood atonement for sins of ignorance, both before and after the sinner becomes aware of wrongdoing. Inspiration is crystal clear on this point. Which is why we can conclude that the pardon God offered Lucifer had nothing to do with sinning - either intentionally or unintentionally.


MM: Tom, not once do the quotes you posted say God was willing to pardon willful sinning. Not once. If they did, then rest assured I would agree with you. But they don't. Also, the quote about Jesus' "whole" ministry does not contradict what she wrote in the following passages:

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: Tom, do you believe Jesus speaks to us through the OT? Or, are you assuming He only speaks to us through the NT? Either way, where in the NT does Jesus say God can and will pardon sinning without applying the shed the blood of Jesus?

"In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin." If I remember right, and please correct me if I've gotten it wrong, you interpret this insight (and the other one quoted above) in light of the moral influence theory. That is, I hear you saying the death of Jesus served only to create an environment whereby sinners could repent, could hate sin and love God. But you totally reject the idea His death was required to give God the legal right to pardon sinning.


MM: Again, you are assuming her description of Lucifer's tactics and strategy implies he was guilty of willfully sinning. But that is your conclusion, not hers. Please keep in mind she is describing the behavior of a perfect and sinless angel, at a time in history when sinning was unheard of.


MM: In DA 21, 22 (quoted above) she is describing Satan's behavior after he was convinced his course was wrong.


MM: Tom, inspiration is clear - God cannot pardon sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus.

MM: Let's include enough of the ongoing dialog that we do not have to go back and forth to make sense of it.

OK. Actually the way things scroll, I guess the length is not a problem. It is easier to read your posts the way you are doing things. I have had the same problem you are speaking of in some conversations with others where someone makes some comment of which I don't know the context so I have to go looking for it, so I think yours is a good idea.

Sounds good to me. I posted a response above my last one for you look at.

What I said was that the problem of man and angels was being deceived in regards to the love and character of God. Apart from Christ, man would never have seen the truth, and would have been lost. The quotes I have provided make the following points clear:

a)The whole purpose of Christ's ministry was the revelation of God, in order to set men right with Him.
b)The cross revealed the love and character of God, which made it possible for man to be brought back to God.
c)Lucifer knew God's character, and was offered pardon on the condition of repentance and submission.



Please take a look at a), b) and c). Which quote that I have been citing does not say what I have summarized in a), b) and c)?



I'm not so sure I would be so confident in my ability to believe something different than what I believe just because inspiration states it. This requires a certain amount of flexibility. I recall a number of occasions where you have claimed that words do not mean what they ordinarily mean, which does not seem to be demonstrating the willingness to believe something just because inspiration says it. It's not such an easy thing to change one's mind about something one believes. (Please note I'm including myself in saying this; i.e. my remarks here are not only directed towards you.)



I'm just asking that one looks at the record of what Lucifer did. It's pretty obvious that these were willful sins.

Try the following experiment. If you have friends that are not SDAs, simply give them the passage, have them read it, and ask them the question if Lucifer was willfully sinning.

The only way it seems to me that one could read of the lying, the scheming, the induldging of hatred and envy, aspiring to be equal to God, and so forth, and not think this is willful sin is to have some presuppositions already in place that would inhibit one from such a conclusion.

As I pointed out, in addition to the accounts she gives, she speaks of Lucifer's being in revolt, in rebellion, commiting iniquity, as well as transgression.



Where is inspiration clear on this? In Scripture we read that God winked in times of ignorance. In the Spirit of Prophecy we read that where there is no light, there is no sin, and no frown of God. It seems that inspiration is clear this is NOT the case. Plus, what sense would it make? Atonement is "at-one-ment," as Sister White puts it, which is reconciliation. How can one be reconciled if one has no idea one is doing wrong?



This just looks like circular reasoning. You believe a certain thing, and so "conclude" that what you believe is true. Look at what you just wrote! "Which is why we can conclude that the pardong God offered Lucifer had nothing to do with sinning." Why can we conclude this? Because it is your opinion. But where is the evidence for this opinion? You haven't cited a single thing.

On the other hand, we know that God offered pardon to Lucifer "again and again." I'm sure you agree with this. We also know that pardon is for sin. Or I suppose I could ask you to provide what you ask me to, and ask you to show me a "thus saith the Lord" that the pardon that Lucifer was offered had nothing to do with sin. Or, to make it easier, a "Thus saith the Lord" where *any* pardon at any time in any circumstance offered by God to anybody is stated to not have anything to do with sin.

In addition to being offered pardon "again and again," Lucifer was given the opportunity to "confess his sin." Most people would conclude that if Lucifer was given an opportunity to confess his sin, that he had sinned.



Is there some place where I claimed the quotes I posted say God was willing to pardon willful sinning? Why not consider whether or not the quotes say the things I actually said they say?

Please take a look at what I actually wrote, at what I said the quotes actually said, and what the quotes actually say, and see if you agree with that.



Certainly not. The passages you cite should be interpreted in the light of what she wrote about the whole ministry of Jesus being to reveal God to us so that we could be set right with Him.



I would call what I believe to be the "Great Controversy" theme as opposed to the Moral Influence Theory, which both misses essential points to the GC theory, as well as including some points I don't agree with (e.g., the formulation of righteousness by faith under MIT). I agree with Fifield's explanations, who was a contemporary of Ellen White. Here are a couple of quotes:





I see his writing to be in harmony with hers. For example, not his explanation of "atonement" as "at-one-ment" (the same as hers). Also his remarks brings to mind the following quote of EGW:





That sinning was unheard of, does not make sin not to be sin. The first commandment says not to have any other Gods before you. Lucifer aspired to be equal with God, and drew homage that should have been given to God to himself. This is clearly a violation of the first commandment. She spoke of Lucifer's "lying representations," which is a violation of the commandment not to bear false witness. She also described what Lucifer did as "iniquity," "transgression," "revolt," and "rebellion."

Regarding whether the conclusion that Lucifer was willfully sinning is a reasonable one, I would again simply invite you to give the passage in question to any non-SDA friend you have, and ask them if the being in the passage is willfully sinning.



Not in the case of angels. She spoke of Lucifer's already having "excited the sympathy of heavenly beings" through his "lying representations" before being convinced he was wrong.



The question is why not? What is the meaning of the text? Is the meaning that the shedding of the blood of Jesus is necessary on God's side, or on ours? My arguments have been to demonstrate that your ideas cannot be correct, because they fail in the case of Lucifer. Your counter to this seems very weak. For example, it depends upon the idea that God's offering Lucifer pardon was not pardon for sin (this is probably the weakest point in your argument).

It also depends upon things Lucifer did, described as "lying representations," "rebellion," "aspiring to be equal with God" and so forth as not being sin.

Another major flaw in your idea is that not even so much as one time during the entirety of Jesus' ministry did He ever give voice to your idea. However, everything he did and said concides with my view, which is that the whole purpose of His minstry was to set us right with God through a revelation of His character.

TE: Regarding whether the conclusion that Lucifer was willfully sinning is a reasonable one, I would again simply invite you to give the passage in question to any non-SDA friend you have, and ask them if the being in the passage is willfully sinning.

MM: I'm not sure I'm comfortable with letting a non-SDA friend settle the issue for us. Neither would I be comfortable admitting that a SDA friend of mine believes God was willing to pardon Lucifer's willful sinning without requiring the death of Jesus. I don't know of anyone, besides you, who believes God can pardon willful sinning without the substitutionary death of Jesus.

TE: Regarding whether the conclusion that Lucifer was willfully sinning is a reasonable one, I would again simply invite you to give the passage in question to any non-SDA friend you have, and ask them if the being in the passage is willfully sinning.

MM: I'm not sure I'm comfortable with letting a non-SDA friend settle the issue for us. Neither would I be comfortable admitting that a SDA friend of mine believes God was willing to pardon Lucifer's willful sinning without requiring the death of Jesus. I don't know of anyone, besides you, who believes God can pardon willful sinning without the substitutionary death of Jesus.

You mean in the case of Lucifer? I can think of quite a few people who believe this. Maybe you need to run around in different circles :).

The point about letting an non-SDA read it is not to settle the issue, but to demonstrate that Ellen White is not being in any way unclear that Lucifer was sinning. I'm just pointing out that any person with no ax to grind would naturally see this, which is why I suggested the experiment.

Back to the pardon issue. The question of why the blood was needed is the main issue. No one is debating *that* blood was needed (for man), but why. Given that the blood was needed for man, but not for Lucifer, the reason must be something which applies to man, but not to Lucifer. This is why the idea that *God* needed the blood must be ruled out.

As to why I think it is necessary, the quotes by Fifield I think bring out the issues wonderfully. I'll repost the quotes, and add one.








I think these quotes are right on target. They match perfectly the teachings of Jesus Christ, which is an important point.

I think when I ask you where in Jesus' teachings does He present the idea you are suggesting, and you can't come up with any place, that's a telling point that perhaps the idea you are suggesting isn't getting at the real reason that Christ died. On the other hand, there are teachings of His which are directly contrary to the idea you are suggesting, such as the parable of the prodigal son, and the parable of the man pardoned by the king, to just name two.

There are also the teachings of the sermon on the mount.

There is Jesus' example in forgiving the woman caught in adultery and the publican. He demanded no blood, but freely forgave them. He always taught that God freely forgives. There's no hint of any other idea than this.

Finally, and perhaps the greatest expression of this theme, was Jesus' words "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Jesus was here revealing the heart of the Father.

God freely forgives is a pillar of Jesus' teaching. We cannot have the full, rich relationship with God thinking that He will only forgive us if His Son dies to satisfy Him, that we could have if we believe that God freely forgives, and freely loves, and as an expression of that love and forgiveness *gives* us His Son, in order that we can be reconciled to Him.

Please consider carefully the Fifield quotes. They really helped me in better understanding this issue.

TE: God freely forgives is a pillar of Jesus' teaching.

MM: The reason God can rightfully and legally justify forgiving repentant sinners is because 1) Jesus paid their sin debt of death, and 2) they are dead to sin and awake to righteousness, that is, they are abiding in Jesus, partaking of the divine nature, walking in the Spirit and mind of the new man.

TE: We cannot have the full, rich relationship with God thinking that He will only forgive us if His Son dies to satisfy Him ....

MM: God is able and willing to forgive us for the reasons stated above. It has absolutely nothing to do with satisfying a lust for revenge. Justice demands that sin be not MERELY pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. That's the way it is. I cannot explain it, but I accept it. It is the truth. Jesus taught it both by precept and example. Nothing is clearer in Jesus' teachings than the relationship between sin and death and pardon.

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}

Also, God cannot pardon willful sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus. This is a pillar of truth. In fact, there comes a time when willful sinning cannot be pardoned.

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.