HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
Andrew, Trainor, ekoorb1030, jibb555, MBloomfield
1325 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,213
Members1,325
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
asygo 29
Rick H 26
kland 16
November
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Member Spotlight
asygo
asygo
California, USA
Posts: 5,636
Joined: February 2006
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
9 registered members (daylily, TheophilusOne, dedication, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible), 2,498 guests, and 5 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 12 of 28 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 27 28
Re: Are there any excuses for sinning? [Re: Tom] #93333
12/09/07 03:03 PM
12/09/07 03:03 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
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.

Re: Are there any excuses for sinning? [Re: Mountain Man] #93334
12/09/07 04:34 PM
12/09/07 04:34 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
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?


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Are there any excuses for sinning? [Re: Tom] #93335
12/09/07 04:43 PM
12/09/07 04:43 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
 Quote:
MM: But what was the difference before and after? Why was his sin pardonable before but not after? See original question above. Realize, of course, that the idea Lucifer was sinning willfully (before he was convinced pursuing his course further involve sinning) is inconclusive. The evidence doesn’t support it.

TE: It wasn't that God could not pardon the sin, but Lucifer had made a final decision, and there was nothing more that God could do for him. The difference was in Lucifer.

 Quote:
But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him.


Regarding Lucifer sinning willfully, the evidence is clear. One can see this by the description of what he did. For example, he lied. A lie is a willful sin. Another example is that he feigned reverence for God and acted with mysterious secrecy.

Also there is the fact that God offered him pardon. Since when does God offer pardon for anything other than willful sin? Has God, in your entire life (I'm referring to the Holy Spirit's work of convicting of sin) ever convicted you of something other than willful sin? Has God ever offered to forgive you of something other than willful sin?

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.

 Quote:
MM: I appreciate the quotes you posted. But they don’t address my question, nor do they support your assertion that God was willing to pardon Lucifer’s willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus.

TE: Yes they do, MM. The quotes explain why the death of Christ was necessary, which is the very point we're discussing. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. Why not? That's the key question to understand.

The quotes bring out that man was brought under Satan's rule by means of being deceived by Satan in regards to God's character (DA quote). It also brings out that the *whole* purpose of Christ's ministry was to reveal God's character, in order to make man right with God (ST quote). Which explains why the cross revealing the love and character of God (DA quote) was so important. It all fits together.

As to the blood of Jesus not being necessary in order for God to offer Lucifer pardon, we have the record that God did indeed offer Lucifer pardon many times, and we have the record that Jesus did not die, making it clear that His death was not necessary in order for God to offer Lucifer pardon, since He did that very thing.

You have decided to look at things from the perspective that Anselm brought to light in the 11th century, a time when the honor of Lords was important, as well as maintaining order and control. But Anselm's understanding does not agree with the background of Scripture. In Paul's time, the idea of a sacrifice being needed in order for God to pardon simply didn't exist. Unfortunately, having moved recently, my books are still in a state of array, so I can't post what I was thinking of. I couldn't find anything on line regarding what I was looking for either. I thought I had posted something on this, but couldn't find that either.

At any rate, Anselm's idea simply didn't exist at the time of Paul.

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}

 Quote:
MM: Nowhere is such an idea advocated, that is, no where is it taught God pardons willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus.

TE: Nowhere is it taught that God will only pardon sin if shedding of blood is involved. There is no need to teach something which is false.

Cite one thing from Jesus Christ where He says the purpose of His death was to allow God to pardon us. Just one thing. A statement of His, or a parable or anything. You can't. Such a statement or teaching does not exist.

If the purpose of His death were to allow God to pardon us, don't you think He would have at least mentioned that somewhere?

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.

 Quote:
And, nowhere does it say repentance and submission are sufficient to atone for willful sin.

TE: The facts are there, MM. We can see what he did. He "indulged" hatred and envy. He lied. He aspired to be equal with God. He schemed to get other angels to serve him instead of God. He feigned reverence for God and secretly hid the true purpose of his actions, which was to exalt himself. Any one of these things would be enough to show willful sin.

Plus there is the fact that Lucifer was offered pardon "again and again" as well as being the opportunity to confess his sin.

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.

 Quote:
Please, Tom, post quotes that deal directly with the question, not quotes that you believe imply it.

TE: Please pay attention to the quotes and what I said! Every quote says exactly what I said it did. There's nothing implied. I'll go through just a little bit of this so you can see this.

Here's a quote.

 Quote:
In heaven itself this law was broken. Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving. Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world.
(DA 21, 22)


Here's my comment:

 Quote:

How Satan got man to rebel was through deception, by misrepresenting God's character.


Do you see how my comment is not something implied by what I quoted, not something I "believe was implied" but something which was actually stated?

Each comment I made is along the same lines. Each comment I made is sustained by the quote I'm commenting one.

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

 Quote:
A supposed implication totally comes short of supporting such an audacious claim, namely, that God is willing to pardon willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus, that repentance and submission are, of themselves, sufficient to atone for willful sinning.

Such a claim goes against everything we know to be right and true. I need more than mere logical deduction supposedly based on unrelated insights to abandoned the truth, to believe such a contradictory claim. I need a plain, Thus saith the Lord. So far you haven’t provided it.

TE: Surely if what you say is true, that God is unwilling to forgive unless the shedding of blood is involved were true, Jesus would have taught it somewhere. Where is such a teaching to be found?

The account of Lucifer is a "thus saith the Lord" if you believe Ellen White to be inspired. We see in the account the sin, we see the repeated offer for pardon, but we see no mention of the need for blood. Why don't you need a "thus saith the Lord" for what you believe? And why should I need a thus saith the Lord to negate a position which is false?

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

Re: Are there any excuses for sinning? [Re: Tom] #93336
12/09/07 04:47 PM
12/09/07 04:47 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
 Originally Posted By: Tom Ewall
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: Let's include enough of the ongoing dialog that we do not have to go back and forth to make sense of it.

Re: Are there any excuses for sinning? [Re: Mountain Man] #93367
12/10/07 01:41 PM
12/10/07 01:41 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
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.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Are there any excuses for sinning? [Re: Tom] #93371
12/10/07 02:48 PM
12/10/07 02:48 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Sounds good to me. I posted a response above my last one for you look at.

Re: Are there any excuses for sinning? [Re: Mountain Man] #93373
12/10/07 04:49 PM
12/10/07 04:49 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
 Quote:
MM: But what was the difference before and after? Why was his sin pardonable before but not after? See original question above. Realize, of course, that the idea Lucifer was sinning willfully (before he was convinced pursuing his course further involve sinning) is inconclusive. The evidence doesn’t support it.

TE: It wasn't that God could not pardon the sin, but Lucifer had made a final decision, and there was nothing more that God could do for him. The difference was in Lucifer.

Quote:
But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him.


Regarding Lucifer sinning willfully, the evidence is clear. One can see this by the description of what he did. For example, he lied. A lie is a willful sin. Another example is that he feigned reverence for God and acted with mysterious secrecy.

Also there is the fact that God offered him pardon. Since when does God offer pardon for anything other than willful sin? Has God, in your entire life (I'm referring to the Holy Spirit's work of convicting of sin) ever convicted you of something other than willful sin? Has God ever offered to forgive you of something other than willful sin?

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?


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.

 Quote:
And, please, do not cite the SOP quotes you always post. They simply do not say what you say they say.


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)?

 Quote:
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.


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.)

 Quote:
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.


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.

 Quote:
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.


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?

 Quote:

Which is why we can conclude that the pardon God offered Lucifer had nothing to do with sinning - either intentionally or unintentionally.


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.

 Quote:

Quote:
MM: I appreciate the quotes you posted. But they don’t address my question, nor do they support your assertion that God was willing to pardon Lucifer’s willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus.

TE: Yes they do, MM. The quotes explain why the death of Christ was necessary, which is the very point we're discussing. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. Why not? That's the key question to understand.

The quotes bring out that man was brought under Satan's rule by means of being deceived by Satan in regards to God's character (DA quote). It also brings out that the *whole* purpose of Christ's ministry was to reveal God's character, in order to make man right with God (ST quote). Which explains why the cross revealing the love and character of God (DA quote) was so important. It all fits together.

As to the blood of Jesus not being necessary in order for God to offer Lucifer pardon, we have the record that God did indeed offer Lucifer pardon many times, and we have the record that Jesus did not die, making it clear that His death was not necessary in order for God to offer Lucifer pardon, since He did that very thing.

You have decided to look at things from the perspective that Anselm brought to light in the 11th century, a time when the honor of Lords was important, as well as maintaining order and control. But Anselm's understanding does not agree with the background of Scripture. In Paul's time, the idea of a sacrifice being needed in order for God to pardon simply didn't exist. Unfortunately, having moved recently, my books are still in a state of array, so I can't post what I was thinking of. I couldn't find anything on line regarding what I was looking for either. I thought I had posted something on this, but couldn't find that either.

At any rate, Anselm's idea simply didn't exist at the time of Paul.

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.


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.

 Quote:

Also, the quote about Jesus' "whole" ministry does not contradict what she wrote in the following passages:


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.

 Quote:

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}

Quote:
MM: Nowhere is such an idea advocated, that is, no where is it taught God pardons willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus.

TE: Nowhere is it taught that God will only pardon sin if shedding of blood is involved. There is no need to teach something which is false.

Cite one thing from Jesus Christ where He says the purpose of His death was to allow God to pardon us. Just one thing. A statement of His, or a parable or anything. You can't. Such a statement or teaching does not exist.

If the purpose of His death were to allow God to pardon us, don't you think He would have at least mentioned that somewhere?

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.


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:

 Quote:
The atonement is not to appease God’s wrath, so that man dare come to him, but it is to reveal his love, so that they will come to him. It was not Christ reconciling God unto the world, but God in Christ reconciling the world to himself. It is nowhere said that God needed to be reconciled to us; he says, “I have not forsaken you, but you have forsaken me.” And Paul says, “I beseech you in Christ’s stead, Be ye reconciled to God.” It was this question that needed to be answered: How can it be that God is our Father, and that he is love, when we suffer so much, and oftentimes so unjustly, and yet no voice breaks the silence, no Father’s touch soothes our sorrow? The question was to be answered by God, through Christ, breaking the silence, and through him healing the sick, and raising the dead, prophetic of the time when, Satan’s power being broken, all tears shall be wiped away.”


 Quote:
The true idea of the atonement makes God and Christ equal in their love, and one in their purpose of saving humanity. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.’ The life of Christ was not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but that life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely.


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:

 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)


 Quote:

Quote:
And, nowhere does it say repentance and submission are sufficient to atone for willful sin.

TE: The facts are there, MM. We can see what he did. He "indulged" hatred and envy. He lied. He aspired to be equal with God. He schemed to get other angels to serve him instead of God. He feigned reverence for God and secretly hid the true purpose of his actions, which was to exalt himself. Any one of these things would be enough to show willful sin.

Plus there is the fact that Lucifer was offered pardon "again and again" as well as being the opportunity to confess his sin.

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.


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.

 Quote:

Quote:
Please, Tom, post quotes that deal directly with the question, not quotes that you believe imply it.

TE: Please pay attention to the quotes and what I said! Every quote says exactly what I said it did. There's nothing implied. I'll go through just a little bit of this so you can see this.

Here's a quote.

Quote:
In heaven itself this law was broken. Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving. Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world.
(DA 21, 22)


Here's my comment:

Quote:

How Satan got man to rebel was through deception, by misrepresenting God's character.


Do you see how my comment is not something implied by what I quoted, not something I "believe was implied" but something which was actually stated?

Each comment I made is along the same lines. Each comment I made is sustained by the quote I'm commenting one.

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


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.

 Quote:
Quote:
A supposed implication totally comes short of supporting such an audacious claim, namely, that God is willing to pardon willful sin without shedding the blood of Jesus, that repentance and submission are, of themselves, sufficient to atone for willful sinning.

Such a claim goes against everything we know to be right and true. I need more than mere logical deduction supposedly based on unrelated insights to abandoned the truth, to believe such a contradictory claim. I need a plain, Thus saith the Lord. So far you haven’t provided it.

TE: Surely if what you say is true, that God is unwilling to forgive unless the shedding of blood is involved were true, Jesus would have taught it somewhere. Where is such a teaching to be found?

The account of Lucifer is a "thus saith the Lord" if you believe Ellen White to be inspired. We see in the account the sin, we see the repeated offer for pardon, but we see no mention of the need for blood. Why don't you need a "thus saith the Lord" for what you believe? And why should I need a thus saith the Lord to negate a position which is false?

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


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.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Are there any excuses for sinning? [Re: Tom] #93377
12/10/07 08:02 PM
12/10/07 08:02 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
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.

Re: Are there any excuses for sinning? [Re: Mountain Man] #93380
12/10/07 09:38 PM
12/10/07 09:38 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
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.


 Quote:
What shall we say of the false idea of the atonement, held even by many in the popular Protestant churches of today, and expressed in a late confession of faith in these words, “Christ died to reconcile the Father unto us”? This is not the place to enter into a discussion of that theme; suffice it to say that it is the pagan idea of sacrifice applied to Christianity. God, they think, was angry; he must pour forth his wrath upon some one. If upon man, it would eternally damn him, as he deserved; but this would interfere with God’s plan and purpose in creating the worlds, so this must not be. And yet God must not be cheated of his vengeance; for this reason he pours it forth upon Christ, that man may go free. So when Christ died, he was slain really by the wrath and anger of the Father. This is paganism. The true idea of the atonement makes God and Christ equal in their love, and one in their purpose of saving humanity. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.’ The life of Christ was not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but that life was the price which the Father paid to so manifest his loving power as to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind where he could pardon us freely. Thus Satan has transformed the truth of God’s love into a lie, and even infused this lie into the very doctrine of the atonement.


 Quote:
The word “atonement” means at-one-ment. Sin had brought misery, and misery had brought a misunderstanding of God’s character. Thus men had come to hate God instead of loving him; and hating him, the one Father, men also hated man, their brother. Thus, instead of the one family and the one Father, men were separated from God and from each other, and held apart by hatred and selfishness. There must be an atonement. An atonement can be made only by God so revealing his love, in spite of sin and sorrow, that men’s hearts will be touched to tenderness; and they, being delivered from Satan’s delusions, may see how fully and terribly they have misrepresented the divine One, and so done despite to this Spirit of his grace. Thus they may be led, as returning brethren, to come back to the Father’s house of blissful unity.


 Quote:
The atonement is not to appease God’s wrath, so that man dare come to him, but it is to reveal his love, so that they will come to him. It was not Christ reconciling God unto the world, but God in Christ reconciling the world to himself. It is nowhere said that God needed to be reconciled to us; he says, “I have not forsaken you, but you have forsaken me.” And Paul says, “I beseech you in Christ’s stead, Be ye reconciled to God.” It was this question that needed to be answered: How can it be that God is our Father, and that he is love, when we suffer so much, and oftentimes so unjustly, and yet no voice breaks the silence, no Father’s touch soothes our sorrow? The question was to be answered by God, through Christ, breaking the silence, and through him healing the sick, and raising the dead, prophetic of the time when, Satan’s power being broken, all tears shall be wiped away.”


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.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Are there any excuses for sinning? [Re: Tom] #93388
12/11/07 03:35 PM
12/11/07 03:35 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
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.

Page 12 of 28 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 27 28

Moderator  dedication, Rick H 

Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
What are the seven kings of Rev. 17:10?
by Rick H. 11/23/24 07:31 AM
No mail in Canada?
by Rick H. 11/22/24 06:45 PM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 11/21/24 11:03 AM
Fourth quarter, 2024, The Gospel of John
by asygo. 11/20/24 02:31 AM
The 2024 Election, the Hegelian Dialectic
by ProdigalOne. 11/15/24 08:26 PM
"The Lord's Day" and Ignatius
by dedication. 11/15/24 02:19 AM
The Doctrine of the Nicolaitans
by dedication. 11/14/24 04:00 PM
Will Trump be able to lead..
by dedication. 11/13/24 07:13 PM
Is Lying Ever Permitted?
by kland. 11/13/24 05:04 PM
Global Warming Farce
by kland. 11/13/24 04:06 PM
Profiles Of Jesus In Zecharia
by dedication. 11/13/24 02:23 AM
Good and Evil of Higher Critical Bible Study
by dedication. 11/12/24 07:31 PM
The Great White Throne
by dedication. 11/12/24 06:39 PM
A god whom his fathers knew not..
by TruthinTypes. 11/05/24 12:19 AM
Understanding the Battle of Armageddon
by Rick H. 10/25/24 07:25 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
Dr Ben Carson: Church and State
by Rick H. 11/22/24 07:12 PM
Perils of the Emerging Church Movement
by dedication. 11/22/24 04:02 PM
Will Trump Pass The Sunday Law?
by dedication. 11/22/24 12:51 PM
Understanding the 1,260-year Prophecy
by dedication. 11/22/24 12:35 PM
Private Schools
by Rick H. 11/22/24 07:54 AM
The Church is Suing the State of Maryland
by Rick H. 11/16/24 04:43 PM
Has the Catholic Church Changed?
by TheophilusOne. 11/16/24 08:53 AM
Dr Conrad Vine Banned
by Rick H. 11/15/24 06:11 AM
Understanding the 1290 & 1335 of Daniel 12?
by dedication. 11/05/24 03:16 PM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter
Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com

Copyright 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.

"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1