MM, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no please.

There are questions, many of which you like to ask for some reason, that simply cannot be answered "yes" or "no". The beating your wife question is a classic example. For this reason I give a detailed answer.

I've answered your question in detail, several times now. If you want to discuss this further, I direct you to those answers. If there's something in those answers you do not understand, please quote it, and we'll discuss that.

The following I addressed to Arthur, but I'd also be interested in your thoughts.

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, before we switch to whether or not I have stopped beating my wife, please answer my question. Thank you. Here it is again:

Were Jews required to kill an animal to obtain forgiveness?

For example, when Jesus said, "Thou shalt" or "He shall" in the following verses, are we to assume it was optional?

Exodus
29:12 And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom of the altar.
29:16 And thou shalt slay the ram, and thou shalt take his blood, and sprinkle [it] round about upon the altar.
30:10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it [is] most holy unto the LORD.

Leviticus
3:2 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it [at] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
4:29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
4:30 And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put [it] upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.

In the case of Cain and Abel, was killing an animal optional?

Genesis
4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

TE: The following I addressed to Arthur, but I'd also be interested in your thoughts.

MM: Before I can address these points I need to be clear on your answer to the above question. I still don't know what you believe about it. You haven't stated your position clearly.

That blood (i.e. death) was required to make atonement for sin is clear in the following text:

Leviticus
17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

That blood is necessary for atonement has never been disputed. What is being disputed is your idea that God needs blood in order to have the legal right to pardon. So far, you haven't set forth any evidence that this is the case.

Regarding the question of the necessity of animal sacrifice, repentance and faith in Christ is required. The sacrificing of animals was a sign of having faith in Christ. It was required in the same sense that circumcision was required.

The question about your wife is not "switching" anything, but an illustration of why your "yes" or "no" question can't be answered "yes" or "no". This reminds me of the types of questions the pharisees asked Jesus in an attempt to trap him.

If I answer "no," then you could ask, "then why did God command they perform them"? If I answer "yes," then you could ask, "Isn't the sacrifice of Christ sufficient"?

If there is some point you wish to make, please make it. Also, your response to the points I made to Arthur and invited you to address (I've made them elsewhere to you on other occasions as well, but don't recall your addressing them) would be appreciated.

"... for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." Not the affect or influence it has upon sinners. The death of Jesus serves to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice, without which no man can be pardoned. Yes, His cruel death on the cross motivates us to hate sin and to love and obey Him; but it was also required to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. Death must come in consequence of man's sin. I have repeatedly quoted passage that support this truth.

---

TE: Regarding the question of the necessity of animal sacrifice, repentance and faith in Christ is required. The sacrificing of animals was a sign of having faith in Christ. It was required in the same sense that circumcision was required.

MM: Comparing blood atonement with circumcision misses the mark. Circumcision has nothing to do with repentance and pardon. Your answer to my oft repeated question is still unclear.

---

TE: If I answer "yes," then you could ask, "Isn't the sacrifice of Christ sufficient"?

MM: If you answer, yes, I would simply say you are in harmony with the law of God. The reason Jesus commanded the Jews to kill an animal to obtain pardon is because it reflects the truth regarding the relationship between sin and death and pardon.

But that's what the atonement is all about! It "at-one-ment." It is precisely the affect or influence the blood has upon sinners that is the whole issue. God is fine. He needs no affect or influence.



There aren't two different things going on here. Peter points out that Christ bore our sins in His flesh "to bring us to God." You pointed out that EGW describes this same Scripture (I think it was you) in the legal language you're using. They're both talking about the same thing! Our being reconciled to God is what needs to be accomplished, an "at-one-ment."



Of course death must come in consequence of sin. Sin results in death.




You're not understanding circumcision if you think it has nothing to do with repentance and pardon. This may explain why my answer isn't clear to you.




Paul writes that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. What do you think Paul's point was?

Would you please address my post #93998?

"At-one-ment" means to be at one with the requirements of law and justice. God, as well as sinners, must be in harmony with the just and loving demands of law and justice. The death of Jesus satisfies both.

---

"In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin." (CON 22) This applies to every sinner. That is, every sinner must die because they have sinned. Pardon is not a substitute for the death law and justice requires. The first death is not a substitute for the death law and justice requires. Jesus had to die for our sins in order to have the legal right to pardon and save us.

---

Please show me where circumcision atoned for sin in the same way animal sacrifices atoned for sin.

---

MM: If you answer, yes, I would simply say you are in harmony with the law of God. The reason Jesus commanded the Jews to kill an animal to obtain pardon is because it reflects the truth regarding the relationship between sin and death and pardon.

TE: Paul writes that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. What do you think Paul's point was?

MM: I am not disputing the fact animal sacrifices symbolize the death of Jesus. I am simply asking you a question about it.

1. Was obtaining pardon for sin conditional upon Jews killing an animal?

2. Was it optional when Jesus commanded the Jews to kill an animal to obtain pardon?

I cannot address these points until you plainly answer my questions above.

Sure you can. In particular, points b) and c) are historical, and have no relation whatsoever to whatever points you are discussing.