Then why all the sacrifices for ignorant/unintentional sins? If one sinned ignorantly, that basically means that they didn't mean to do it. That means that there's really no "broken" relationship to fix or animosity from the sinner. Yet, a sacrifice was still necessary.

BTW, I think that Fifield quote is saying something quite different from the PK quote. Fifield was arguing against the thought that Christ's sacrifice appeased God, while EGW was arguing against the thought that animal sacrifice was meritorious.

This is from a web site:



If I do something in ignorance which offends you, and find out about it, it's only natural that I should do something to make amends, even though I was acting in ignorance. The inclination to want to do something to make amends comes spontaneously from the person who has acted wrongly. God, for our own benefit, allowed the presentation of sacrifices as a sign that everything was OK in the relationship.

The problem is always on our end. God is like Jesus Christ. Can we imagine Jesus needing some sort of offering so that He can forgive? He didn't ask for anything. He freely forgave the paralytic, freely forgave the woman caught in adultery, freely forgave the publican, and on the cross prayed that God would freely forgive those who were torturing and killing Him. God is like that.



I think this is just two sides of the same coin. If you look at Waggoner's thoughts, in particular, on Romans 3 (http://www.nisbett.com/righteousness/aor/rom03.htm) you can see that his thoughts run in concert with EGW's, mentioning, e.g., the same thing she did in relation to prayers not meriting forgiveness.

An excellent book to read on the subject of the atonement in general is "Christus Victor" by Gustav Aulen. A Non-Violent Atonement by J. Denny Weaver is also very interesting. Aulen's book is more historical, while Weaver goes more into the philosophical implications involved in God's requiring violence in order to be able to forgive.

And there's the difficulty. Yes, the sacrifice only came in when the sin was discovered. (Obviously, we wouldn't be offering sacrifices unless the sin was known to us.) When the sin was discovered, why would a sacrifice be necessary? If amends needed to be made, what needed amending?

Since the sin was ignorantly done, there was no bad attitude on the sinner's part. Same goes for God, since there was no bad relationship. So, what's the sacrifice for, if the relationship between God and sinner was not broken?

Can it be merely to signify that all is OK? Did Jesus have to die to say everything is fine? Or does killing an animal have some kind of merit?


I'll have to look into this more, but I don't think they're the same coin at all. One is saying something about Christ's sacrifice, while the other is saying something about animal sacrifice. Fifield says, "Christ's sacrifice was not for X," while EGW says, "Animal sacrifices were not for Y." They are not directly related.

As I stated, it's only natural that if I do something wrong to you in ignorance, when I find out about it, I make amends. I say, "I'm sorry." You say, "No problem. I forgive you." The relationship is repaired. The sacrifices are about this.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to read into anything about obtaining a legal right to pardon. Moses, who wrote the books talking about the sacrifices, said nothing about this, and the Hebrews, who practiced the sacrifices for centuries, didn't believe this.



As above. Even though there was no bad attitude, there was still wrong that had been done.



There's no "or" here. That is, there's no reason to think that either Jesus had to die to say everything is fine or that killing an animal has some kind of merit. These two things do not form some kind of set representing the possible reasons for Jesus' death.

In answer to the first question, in the case of sins of ignorance, I would think that the principle meaning of the sacrifice was for the sinner to recognize he had done wrong and to ask for forgiveness, repledging allegiance to God, as well as God's acceptance of the repentance. Of course, it also has the meaning that God Himself was providing the sacrifice that would reconcile. And there are a great many other meanings one can discern in the sacrifice of Christ. There isn't just one model of the atonement. There are many, and all seem to have some merit. I just don't see that in any valid model of the atonement is it necessary for God to obtain the legal right to pardon. Why would He need such a right? He already had the right, simply by virtue of being God.

Regarding the second question, yes. As Ellen White put it:



Or, as Peter put it, Christ died to "bring us to God."

Regarding killing an animal having merit, no, of course not. I'm not understanding why you asked that one.

Arnold, I'd like to invite you to consider some of the points I've been trying to make. First of all, I recognize that the penal substitution model of the atonement is very entrenched in us. It's what we are taught. It's the language we know. So even the idea that it might be possible that it's not a valid model is hard to fathom. It took me 30 years to come around to the way of thinking I have now, and was a road that covered a long distance and had many curves.

Here are the main points that have made a difference to me:

a)I see nothing in Jesus' teaching that suggests that His death was for the purpose of allowing God to be legally able to forgive us. On the other hand, I see specific teachings to suggest the contrary, both in what He said and did.

b)Historically, the Hebrews did not believe this idea, in fact, no culture did. The idea was not enunciated by any of the early fathers. We don't see the idea at all until the "midnight of the world" which was the "noon of the papacy," which would make this teaching, if true, unique, being the only truth that disappeared from view during the time when light was receding only to put up at the very time when darkness was at its greatest.

c)The Eastern Orthodox church does not have the penal idea. Why not? Because they split from the Roman Catholic church before Anselm. It's hard to fathom how it could be the case that they would not have this belief if it were Scriptural. As they point out, it wasn't in any of the creeds or writings of the fathers of the church.

I'll keep it simple and leave it with these three things. Or maybe four. A fourth point is that, if penal substitution were true, God would be dependent upon violence in order to legally pardon us. That's a really weird idea. God shouldn't have to be dependent upon something which has no place in His government in order to do something legally sanctioned by His government. This would imply, among other things, that His government was not perfect (if perfect, God should not be dependent upon a principle outside of it, such as violence, in order to accomplish His purposes).

Tom, neither Fifield nor Sister White addressed the question in the quotes you posted. Here is the question again - Were sinners required to sacrifice an animal to obtain forgiveness? Or, was death optional?

In order to obtain forgiveness, what is necessary is repentance and faith in Christ. The sacrifices were a type of Christ. They had no merit in themselves. They testified to the repentance and faith of the one offering the sacrifice, similar to what partaking of communion is for us.

I understood what you were really getting at as having to do with if it was necessary for Christ to die, which is what the quotes I provided were addressing (i.e., why Christ's death was necessary).

I am talking about the sacrificial system. Was killing an animal optional or required to obtain forgiveness?

That was the question I was answering.

Your question is analogous to asking if baptism or communion is necessary to obtain forgiveness.

As Paul points out in Hebrews, the blood of animals was never sufficient for the taking away of sins. Only the blood of Christ can accomplish this. However, the offering of sacrifices in their time, like communion in ours, testified to the faith the offerers of the sacrifice had in Christ.

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding your answer. Did Jesus require the Jews to slay an animal in order to obtain forgiveness? Or, was it optional?