Jesus instructed the Jews to confess their sins upon a sacrificial lamb to obtain forgiveness. You seem to be saying forgiveness was available without a penal substitute. Am I hearing you right?

That Sister White believed in penal substitution is clear from 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 1082
Adam listened to the words of the tempter, and yielding to his insinuations, fell into sin. Why was not the death penalty at once enforced in his case?--Because a ransom was found. God's only begotten Son volunteered to take the sin of man upon Himself, and to make an atonement for the fallen race. There could have been no pardon for sin had this atonement not been made. Had God pardoned Adam's sin without an atonement, sin would have been immortalized, and would have been perpetuated with a boldness that would have been without restraint (RH April 23, 1901). {1BC 1082.6}

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, regarding the passages from John, Galatians, and Isaiah, only one of these is from Jesus' life and teaching, and none of them say what you are saying. None of them teach that God could not legally pardon us unless Christ died. Where do you see even a hint of this?

Since I asked you cite something from Jesus' life, and you did quote something from John, let's take a look at that.



You'll have to explain why you quoted this one. This seems to be speaking of God's providential care of Jesus, and has nothing to do with God's obtaining a legal right to pardon, right?



??? Same question on this one. What were you thinking in citing this?



Same question. These so totally have nothing to do with Jesus' having to die so that God could have a legal right to pardon, that I don't even know how to begin. Please provide some idea of what you were thinking.

Regarding the Old Testament, my point was that surely Jesus, during His ministry, would have explained the meaning and purpose of His death. How could this possibly not be the case, given the place His death holds to the Gospel and the Plan of Salvation. So I'm simply asking you, where in His ministry did He teach what you say it true? This is a reasonable request, isn't it?

MM, I've asked you two questions, several times now, which are as follows:



I assume your answer to the first one is yes, you recognize this, and you would give as a reason that Jesus needed to counteract the influence of the Jewish leaders. This is a conjecture based on other things you have said. You could acknowledge that you agree with this, if I've guessed your point of view correctly here, or, if not, state what your point of view really is.

Regarding the second, I have no idea what your thoughts are, and, as I stated, I'm very interested in knowing your thoughts regarding what Jesus said.


Thank you,

Tom

On the EGW quotes, we've already talked about the first quote. The second quote says:



This gives the reason why the death of Christ was necessary. There's nothing here about it being necessary in order for God to have the legal right to pardon. It says that had Christ not died, sin would have been perpetuated.

The third quote says, "In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" which seems to be conveying the same idea as the second. It was necessary for man to see the consequences of sin (which is death) in order for sin not to be perpetuated. If sin were perpetuated, justice would hardly be satisfied, and this answers the first quote as well.

Something you need to keep in mind is that if sin required death in order for God to have the legal right to pardon, then Christ would have had to die in order for God to pardon Lucifer, which is something EGW clearly does not agree with.

I've also asked you several times if you read the Fifield quotes I provided, and suggested that we could discuss something in what they say that you might find interesting. I think Fifield did an excellent job of explaining the theory of the atonement, and that his explanation is fully in harmony with Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.

Waggoner, of whom EGW said, "he can teach righteousness by faith better than I can" wrote:



The Eastern Orthodox do not hold to the Penal Substitution idea. Do you know why not? It's because they split from the Roman Catholic church *before* Anselm, who intruded the idea. If the idea had been from Scripture, they would hold to it, in addition to the Catholics. Either that or you have to argue that Anselm discovered a truth from Scripture which had been lost until about A.D. 1100, which EGW describes as the noon time of the papacy and midnight for the world (actually, she was quoting someone else).

Tom, let's discuss penal substitution on the thread created for that purpose.

TE: Do you recognize that there was a necessity for Jesus to come in the flesh in order to reveal God to us?

MM: Yes. The "his hour" quotes I posted point out another reason why Jesus came in the flesh - to die, to pay our sin debt of death.

TE: Changing tacks a bit, but as a response to your questions about the Old Testament, how do you understand this?

MM: As I said the first time, not once did Jesus contradict what He taught in the OT.

TE: Something you need to keep in mind is that if sin required death in order for God to have the legal right to pardon, then Christ would have had to die in order for God to pardon Lucifer, which is something EGW clearly does not agree with.

MM: It is your opinion, Tom, that Sister White taught God was willing to pardon Lucifer's willful sinning without shedding the blood of Jesus.

TE: I've also asked you several times if you read the Fifield quotes I provided, and suggested that we could discuss something in what they say that you might find interesting.

MM: Please cite what you think is interesting.

TE: I agree with Fifield's explanations, who was a contemporary of Ellen White. Here are a couple of quotes:





TE: 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:

Ok.



Good! Why was it necessary for Jesus to reveal God to us?



Two things. First of all, the question you were asked was if you recognized that it was necessary for Jesus to come in order to reveal God. To answer this question "yes," and then cite texts which make some different point which wasn't asked is at best confusing.

Second of all, where did Jesus say that He came to pay our sin debt? It's certainly not in the texts you cited.

To be clear, that Jesus paid our sin debt I don't necessarily find objectionable (I can post why, if you're interested). The idea that the death of Jesus was necessary in order for God to have the legal right to pardon is what I've been objecting to.

You've been making this claim, but haven't produced any evidence from Jesus' life or teaching that this is the case. You just cited some things that said His time to die had not come.



That's an interesting observation, but what do you think the text that I cited means? That was my question. You're just making an observation about what it doesn't mean.



She recounted the fall of Lucifer in detail, explaining what happened step by step. She writes that Lucifer was offered pardon again and again, and given the opportunity to confess his sin. She does not write that Jesus died.

I don't think I would use the word "taught," as she wasn't writing didactically. I would say she wrote that Lucifer was offered pardon again and again, and given the opportunity to confess his sin, with no mention of Jesus' death being made (and we know for a fact that Jesus had not died).



Ok. Here's something interesting:

I find the name of this topic, "Are there any excuses for sinning?", most interesting.

If there were an excuse for even one sin, then wouldn't the devil have a solid footing in his accusations against God?

TE: Why was it necessary for Jesus to reveal God to us?

MM: Because for various reasons people are confused.

TE: ... what do you think the text that I cited means?

MM: The "eye for an eye" clause was part of the judicial system. It was administered under a theocracy. Under Roman rule, however, Jews often took matters into their own hands, without due process of law. Given the circumstances Jesus encouraged them to turn the other cheek.

Exodus
21:23 And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Leviticus
24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
24:20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him [again].

Deuteronomy
19:18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, [if] the witness [be] a false witness, [and] hath testified falsely against his brother;
19:19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
19:20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
19:21 And thine eye shall not pity; [but] life [shall go] for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Matthew
5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

TE: "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."

MM: The price paid for our sin debt of death was paid to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. "His sacrifice satisfies fully the demands of justice." (FW 103)

His willing sacrifice on our behalf demonstrates the love of God. It motivates us to serve and obey Him. "When we realize that His suffering was necessary in order to secure our eternal well-being, our hearts are touched and melted. He pledged Himself to accomplish our full salvation in a way satisfactory to the demands of God's justice, and consistent with the exalted holiness of His law." (1SM 309)

But the death of Jesus serves more than to simply save us, more than to simply motivate us to love God. Equally important it also serves to maintain the honor and glory of law and justice. His life and death satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice. Law and justice demands that sinners suffer and die for their sins. To save us, therefore, Jesus must obey the law on our behalf and He must suffer and die on our behalf. In this manner, the honor of law and justice are preserved and sinners are saved. Both are equally important. Both are necessary.

1SM 340
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 340.1}

LHU 24
The blood of beasts could not satisfy the demands of God as an atoning sacrifice for the transgression of His law. The life of a beast was of less value than the life of the offending sinner, therefore could not be a ransom for sin. It could only be acceptable with God as a figure of the offering of His Son. {LHU 24.3}

Christ has made a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of justice. What a price for Heaven to pay to ransom the transgressor of the law of Jehovah. Yet that holy law could not be maintained with any smaller price. . . . The law of God stands vindicated by the suffering and death of the only begotten Son of the infinite God. . . . . The transgression of God's law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. And the nonexecution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the Avenger of justice, which is the habitation and the foundation of His throne. He cannot dispense with His law; He cannot do away with its smallest item in order to meet and pardon sin. The rectitude, justice, and moral excellence of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe and the worlds unfallen. {UL 378}

1SM 363
Christ satisfied the demands of the law in His human nature. He bore the curse of the law for the sinner, made an atonement for him, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. {1SM 363.3}

MM: By living and dying the perfect life and death, Jesus earned the legal right to save us. Law and justice grants Him the legal right to save us.

1SM 309
What right had Christ to take the captives out of the enemy's hands?--The right of having made a sacrifice that satisfies the principles of justice by which the kingdom of heaven is governed. He came to this earth as the Redeemer of the lost race, to conquer the wily foe, and, by His steadfast allegiance to right, to save all who accept Him as their Saviour. On the cross of Calvary He paid the redemption price of the race. And thus He gained the right to take the captives from the grasp of the great deceiver, who, by a lie, framed against the government of God, caused the fall of man, and thus forfeited all claim to be called a loyal subject of God's glorious everlasting kingdom. {1SM 309.4}

Regarding the justice of God being satisfied, the following makes clear how this is accomplished:



Without the death of Christ, sin would have been perpetuated. This is what would have happened had God pardoned Adam's sin without an atonement. Justice would not have been satisfied.

Fifield, in the same sermon quoted from the 1897 GCB in the other thread, also comments on this idea:



Regarding the statement, "You have heard it said eye for eye and tooth for tooth, but I say unto you, if someone smites you, turn the other cheek" I find it very interesting that you comment that "given the circumstances" Jesus encouraged them to turn the other cheek. Unfortunately, this is missing the point Jesus was trying to communicate.



The principle Christ enunciated was not a recommendation, but a reflection of His own character!