"At-one-ment" means to be at one with God. This should be obvious beyond description. But just in case it's not, here's a quote:






Where do you get this idea from? Jesus, as our Creator *has* the legal right to pardon and save us. He doesn't have to obtain a legal right that He has always had.

---


Why are you making such an odd request?

You wrote that circumcision has nothing to do with repentance and pardon. I responded that if you think this is the case, then you do not understand circumcision. A more reasonable question would be for you to ask me to explain to you why circumcision has to do with pardon and repentance. Instead, you've gone off into some other area with no explanation.



As am I. I'm asking you what you think Paul's point was in saying that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin.



Pardon is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, of whom the sacrifices offered by the Jews were a type. Faith is what was required. Anyone would faith would do what God requested, just like now those who have faith partake in communion or baptism.

In order to help the Jews to better understand the Plan of Salvation, God implemented the sacrificial system. By the means of type and anti-type, the Jews could better learn of Christ, the true sacrificial Lamb who takes away sin. As Paul pointed out, the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. Nevertheless, these sacrifices were useful in providing a means by which to better understand Christ, who is the door.



Same response.

"At-one-ment" means to be at one with God. This should be obvious beyond description. But just in case it's not, here's a quote:






Where do you get this idea from? Jesus, as our Creator *has* the legal right to pardon and save us. He doesn't have to obtain a legal right that He has always had.

---


Why are you making such an odd request?

You wrote that circumcision has nothing to do with repentance and pardon. I responded that if you think this is the case, then you do not understand circumcision. A more reasonable question would be for you to ask me to explain to you why circumcision has to do with pardon and repentance. Instead, you've gone off into some other area with no explanation.



As am I. I'm asking you what you think Paul's point was in saying that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin.



Pardon is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, of whom the sacrifices offered by the Jews were a type. Faith is what was required. Anyone would faith would do what God requested, just like now those who have faith partake in communion or baptism.

In order to help the Jews to better understand the Plan of Salvation, God implemented the sacrificial system. By the means of type and anti-type, the Jews could better learn of Christ, the true sacrificial Lamb who takes away sin. As Paul pointed out, the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. Nevertheless, these sacrifices were useful in providing a means by which to better understand Christ, who is the door.



Pardon is obtained by faith in Christ. Not by killing animals. Your question assumes a false premise.

The sacrifices testified to the faith of the believer.

TE: "At-one-ment" means to be at one with God.

MM: Which you and I both agree means the same thing as being at one with the just and loving demands of law and justice, which are a transcript of God's character. It is the "the remedial sacrifice of Christ" that makes us at one with God, at one with with law and justice.

---

TE: Jesus, as our Creator *has* the legal right to pardon and save us. He doesn't have to obtain a legal right that He has always had.

MM: He lost the right to pardon us the instant A&E sinned. We became the rightful property of Satan. But Jesus interposed. With His blood He ransomed us from sin and Satan. He earned the right to pardon and save us. He paid the penalty that law and justice demanded. Here is how Sister White put it:

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. Our ransom has been paid by our Saviour. {1SM 309}

---

TE: Why are you making such an odd request?

MM: You wrote, "The sacrificing of animals was a sign of having faith in Christ. It was required in the same sense that circumcision was required." In what way are they the "same sense"?

---

TE: Pardon is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, of whom the sacrifices offered by the Jews were a type. Pardon is obtained by faith in Christ. Not by killing animals.

MM: Of course pardon was conditional upon Jews having faith in Jesus' substitutionary death. But my question is - Was obtaining pardon for sin also conditional upon Jews killing an animal? Or, was faith in Jesus sufficient without also having to kill an animal?

TE: "At-one-ment" means to be at one with God.

MM: Which you and I both agree means the same thing as being at one with the just and loving demands of law and justice, which are a transcript of God's character. It is the "the remedial sacrifice of Christ" that makes us at one with God, at one with with law and justice.

It's faith that makes us one with God. The sacrifice is the means to an end.

---

TE: Jesus, as our Creator *has* the legal right to pardon and save us. He doesn't have to obtain a legal right that He has always had.

MM: He lost the right to pardon us the instant A&E sinned.

Really? Well I guess this is consistent with your view regarding Lucifer.

Your position is that God only offered Lucifer pardon while he wasn't sinning, as long as he didn't need it. But as soon as Lucifer sinned, he couldn't have pardon. So I suppose it's consistent that as soon as Adam and Eve sinned God would be unable to offer them pardon as well.

Is there anything from Scripture you would like to present that gives the idea that God lost the right to pardon us when Adam and Eve sinned?

We became the rightful property of Satan. But Jesus interposed. With His blood He ransomed us from sin and Satan. He earned the right to pardon and save us. He paid the penalty that law and justice demanded. Here is how Sister White put it:

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. Our ransom has been paid by our Saviour. {1SM 309}

This is just what Christus Victor teaches! This is also called "the ransom theory." This theory predates Anselm by a thousand years, and the penal theory by 1500.

There's nothing in this statement about God's losing or obtaining a legal right to pardon. EGW is expressing basically the same view Iraneus and other early Christian writers presented, who had no concept whatsoever of losing or obtaining legal rights.

---

TE: Why are you making such an odd request?

MM: You wrote, "The sacrificing of animals was a sign of having faith in Christ. It was required in the same sense that circumcision was required." In what way are they the "same sense"?

In the sense of being a sign of having faith in Christ, as I wrote.
---

TE: Pardon is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, of whom the sacrifices offered by the Jews were a type. Pardon is obtained by faith in Christ. Not by killing animals.

MM: Of course pardon was conditional upon Jews having faith in Jesus' substitutionary death.

I didn't write "conditional upon" but "obtained by."

But my question is - Was obtaining pardon for sin also conditional upon Jews killing an animal? Or, was faith in Jesus sufficient without also having to kill an animal?

This is another question with an assumed false premise. Faith is manifest by works. In particular, for the Jews, faith in Christ was manifest by offering sacrifices. So only those who didn't have faith would not offer sacrifices. Hence your question is assuming an impossible situation. No one with faith in Christ would not offer the sacrifice.

Let's say the person committed some sin, and repented of the sin, and by faith in Christ asked for forgiveness, and then died of a stroke immediately before being able to offer a sacrifice. That person would be pardoned. The animal sacrifice would not be necessary.

This is the only situation I could think of that fits your criteria of a Jew in the time of Moses having faith in Christ but not offering a sacrifice.

TE: It's faith that makes us one with God. The sacrifice is the means to an end.

MM: The point is - animal sacrifices were required because God established things in such a way law and justice demand death for sin. Faith appropriates the substitutionary death of Jesus. Both are necessary for God to pardon and save us.

---

TE: But as soon as Lucifer sinned, he couldn't have pardon.

MM: Correct. She wrote, "no provision had been made to save those [angels] who should venture to transgress His law." (SR 18)

---

TE: Is there anything from Scripture you would like to present that gives the idea that God lost the right to pardon us when Adam and Eve sinned?

MM: Yes. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

---

TE: There's nothing in this statement about God's losing or obtaining a legal right to pardon.

MM: Of course it does. "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 ...."

---

TE: In the sense of being a sign of having faith in Christ, as I wrote.

MM: Faith is not enough to obtain pardon. By faith Jews killed an animal to obtain pardon. Faith without works is dead. Jesus had to work to secure our salvation. Law and justice demanded His death.

---

TE: I didn't write "conditional upon" but "obtained by." Pardon is obtained by faith in Jesus Christ.

MM: Again, faith is not enough to obtain pardon. Jesus had to die to satisfy the demands of law and justice. Pardon was conditional upon Jesus paying our sin debt of death. Because His death met this requirement, He earned the right to pardon penitent sinners.

---

TE: No one with faith in Christ would not offer the sacrifice.

MM: I guess this is as close as I'll ever get to an answer. It resembles a - Yes. At least more so than a no. I hear you saying a faithful Jew would kill an animal because Jesus made it conditional upon obtaining pardon. So, the next question is - Why did Jesus make obtaining pardon conditional upon killing an animal?

---

TE: That person would be pardoned. The animal sacrifice would not be necessary.

MM: Only because Jesus is the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Jesus earned the right to pardon him because He paid the death penalty on his behalf.

This sentence doesn't make sense. You're missing something in between "in such a way" and what follows after that.



Certainly. With the substitutionary death of Jesus, faith would be impossible.

---



Correct?! What sense would this make? God offers pardon as long as it's not needed, and as soon as it is, He stops?

Also, what do you do with the statement that God offered to restore Lucifer if he would "confess his sin"?



Well, she's obviously not contradicting herself, so she must not have God's offer to restore Lucifer if he would confess his sin her, correct?

Rather than read things in context, you are pulling a phrase out, without considering its intended meaning. This phrase is dealing with the warning that God gave the angels that if they should follow Satan, they would not be able to return.

By the way, do you think that God has made provision to save anyone who ventures to transgress His law?

---


This verse says that Adam and Eve would die if they sinned. Where does it say anything about God's losing His right to pardon us?

---



This is Christus Victor, as I mentioned. Iraneus wrote pretty much this very statement shortly after Christ's death. He had no idea of penal substitution or legal rights.

---



The act of killing the animal did not obtain pardon. The sacrifice of the animal pointed to the death of Christ. The merit is attached to Christ, not to the animals.



This is correct, which is why I wrote that the faith of those offering the sacrifice was demonstrated by what they did.



I agree with this, but there is no implication in saying this that God had lost any legal rights or needed to obtain legal rights.

---



Pardon is offered on the condition of repentance and submission.



As Waggoner pointed out, God has the right to pardon whom He will. God is not dependent upon death in order to be able to pardon.

---



You have a better chance of getting yes and no answers if you don't ask questions which assume false premises.



That's not what I said. The faith of the believer in Christ was testified by the act of offering a sacrifice which typified Christ.



This is another FOTAP example. (fallacy of the assumed premise).

Pardon is conditional upon faith in Christ. The sacrifice typified Christ, which is the reason for the command.

---



You keep repeating this, but without supporting evidence. I would be more interested in the evidence than the repeated statement.

I would also very much like it if you would consider the post I've been asking your to for some time now. That post has historical arguments, which I've addressed to you several times now, even before that post, but you've never responded to these points.

MM: Animal sacrifices were required because God established things in such a way that law and justice demand death for sin.


MM: It would be impossible for God to pardon penitent sinners without the substitutionary death of Jesus because law and justice prohibit it. Death must come in consequence of man’s sin because law and justice demand it – not because it motivates sinners to love and obey God.


MM: God did not offer to pardon sin after Lucifer was guilty of sinning. He offered to pardon the fact he entertained untrue thoughts and feelings about Him. Such things did not become sin until after he chose to pursue his course even though he was convinced it would be wrong to do so.


MM: The quote applies to all angels. And in principle to applies to all FMAs who choose to sin after receiving a full knowledge of God. “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”


MM: It says sinners will die the instant they sin. It doesn’t say they will be pardoned. Law and justice require death for sin. God cannot pardon sinners without a divine substitution; law and justice forbid it. In sense, God lost the right to pardon sinners. He “gained the right” when Jesus paid the death penalty for sin.


MM: Jesus had to pay the price to earn the right to own sinners. The currency required was death. It’s what law and justice demanded.


MM: Jews were required to kill an animal to obtain pardon. Yes, it symbolizes faith in Jesus’ atoning, substitutionary death; nevertheless, they were also required to kill an animal. Faith alone in Jesus’ death was not adequate to obtain pardon.


MM: What they did was required because law and justice demand death for sin. Killing an animal symbolized the fact Jesus had to die to pay the sin debt of death because death must come in consequence of man’s sin.


MM: The fact law and justice demanded His substitutionary death makes it a legal rights issue. No death means no right to pardon sinners.


MM: Only because God earned the right to offer pardon in the first place. Repentance and submission mean nothing without the death of Jesus. The only reason law and justice can entertain our repentance and submission is due to the fact God earned the legal right to offer pardon.


MM: The entire sacrificial system disagrees with you. No death means no right to pardon sinners. Plain and simple.


MM: Oops. I’m right back where I started. I have no idea what you believe. At times it seems like you believe - Yes, of course, Jews were required to kill an animal to obtain pardon. Naturally, you are quick to add killing an animal symbolized faith in the atoning, substitutionary death of Jesus. And I agree.


MM: Now it sounds like you are saying, No, killing an animal, which symbolized faith in Jesus’ atoning, substitutionary death, was not made a condition upon obtaining pardon. Which makes it sound like death was not required to obtain pardon, which begs the question – Why did Jesus command Jews to kill animals?


MM: But why did Jesus command the Jews to kill animals? Why was it associated with obtaining pardon? What is the link between pardon and death?


MM: The historical arguments you posted mean nothing to me if they are irrelevant. If penal substitution is based on inspired passages, the fact historians didn’t get it is, at best, unfortunate.

No Jew believed this.

The animal sacrifices prefigured the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, whom God gave to man so man could be reconciled to Him.



Death comes as a consequence to sin because sin results in death. There's an organic relationship. The whole problem is with sin. Sin must be overcome, which necessitates faith. It was necessary for Jesus Christ to be given to us so what we might have faith, and be reconciled to God. As Jesus put it, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life".



Yes He did!





This two quotes are talking about the same episode, which is the time when Lucifer made his final decision to oppose God. In the GC quote is says that God offered Lucifer pardon. In the SP quote it says that he was given the opportunity to confess his sin.



This doesn't fit either common sense or what was written. Pardon is offered for sin, not for entertaining untrue thoughts and feelings. Lucifer was given the opportunity to "confess his SIN" so he had clearly sinned.

How could the point that Lucifer had sinned been more clearly indicated than saying that he was given the opportunity to confess his sin?



The quote applies to specific angels, the ones who were contemplating following Satan in rebellion.



Agreed, and this was my point. God has made no provision for anyone to venture to transgress His law. However, God has made provision for those who repent to be restored.



No it doesn't. I suggest you study the Hebrew some so you can obtain an idea as to what it's actually saying.



The point of the text was that sin results in death. It wasn't addressing pardon.



Sin results in death. The sting of death is sin. The wages of sin is death. This is not because of an arbitrary requirement, but is an organic relationship between sin and death.



Lucifer's case makes it clear this is simply not true. Lucifer was given an opportunity to repent and confess his sin, and he would have been pardoned and restored to his position had he done so.



I mostly agree with this, although the words mean something very different to me than they do to you.

Divine justice, according to Scripture, is redemptive and restorative, not retributive. Justice is satisfied when redemption occurs. This is the Biblical idea, of which there is much, much evidence (which I can produce upon request).

I wouldn't say Christ "earned the right" as Christ has no need to "earn" anything, being God, and having no debts, but Christ obtained the ability to "own" us by His death; I agree with this.



From EGW:



Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone. It is not obtain by faith plus works. Works testify to faith, but are not added to faith to obtain salvation.



No Jew had this idea when offering the sacrifice.

Yours is just one possible theory. There are many other ideas about the meaning of the sacrifices.



This is clearly seen not to be true by Lucifer's case. There's also no Scriptural evidence that this is the case. You have produced no text that says that the sacrifice of Christ was necessary in order for God to have the legal right to pardon. You just have a circular argument.

When I pointed out that you have produced no Scriptural evidence for the idea that God required death in order to be able to legally pardon, you gave as evidence of this the sacrificial system! That's totally circular!

The whole issue we're discussing is why the sacrifice was necessary. *That* the sacrifice was necessary is not in dispute. Please produce some Scriptural evidence that the *reason* the sacrifice was necessary was so God could legally forgive. Don't just keep repeating this over and over again. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. I see you repeated this same idea 7 times in one post, yet none of the 7 times did you adduce any proof, or even attempt to do so.

Where did Christ say, "I am going to die to earn the legal right for My Father to pay you?" It doesn't have to be in these words, but where did He communicate this idea?

I'll stop here to keep this post from being longer.

Not true!



There was no death of Jesus here, no "legal right" was "earned" to be able to offer pardon.



This is absurd. You have one way of looking at this, while millions of people have another. You assert that the sacrificial system disagrees with me for no other reason than you have a different idea about what it means than I do.

What I believe is in harmony with what the Jews believed when they offered the sacrifices. (e.g. Romans 12:1) No Jew, not Abraham, not Moses, not David, none, had the idea that they were offering a sacrifice because it was necessary for God to obtain the legal right to pardon sin. So if the entire sacrificial system disagrees with me, it also disagrees with Abraham, Moses, David, and every other Jew that ever offered sacrifices.



There's no reason not to know what I believe. I've been saying the many times now. Faith in Christ is what is necessary to obtain pardon. Christ was symbolized in the animals sacrificed.



I'm saying the same thing I've been saying. Faith in Christ is necessary. The sacrificed animals typified Christ.



The sacrifice stood for a giving of self, a dedication, a part of which included repentance and the confessing of sin. This understanding was common not just to the Hebrews, but to other cultures as well. The difference in Christianity, or true Judaism one could say, from other religions is that there is also the understanding that the true sacrifice, the true giving of self, is the gift of God giving Himself to us through His Son.

David expressed the idea here:





History is not irrelevant. It helps dispel ignorance. (e.g. believing Sabbath was changed to Sunday).



If the historical facts are such that an inspired passage cannot mean a certain thing, then that's relevant and important. We use historical facts all the time to prove our positions on the Sabbath vs. Sunday, for the 2300 prophecy and many other things.

Tom, there really isn't much we can that hasn't already been said. We simply disagree.