I think everything Jesus did fully revealed the love and character of the Father. That being said, nothing demonstrated God's love and character as clearly as Gesthemane and Calvary.

The SOP says it we be good for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating upon the life of Christ, especially the latter scenes. Christ's whole life revealed the Father, especially the latter scenes.



There is no legal requirement that I do something first, before I can forgive your debt, unless the law forbids it? This doesn't seem to make any sense. Can you explain what you intended to say?

If I ask you for something from Christ's teaching, and you quote me something else, you're not being responsive to my request. I'm not rejecting the quotes you provided. They're simply not responsive to my request.

From Ellen White's writings it's clear that she did not believe Christ had to die in order for God to have the legal right to pardon because God offered Lucifer pardon many times without Christ's having died.



How is this clear? It seems to me that for thousands of years, until Anselm came along, no one understood it the way you are suggesting. So how could it be clear?



Again, I would ask, if the way you see things is correct, why did no one see it this way until Anselm?



Your claim is that God cannot legally pardon sin unless Christ died. These verses don't come anywhere even remotely close to suggesting this. In addition, I believe I asked you to produce something from Christ's teachings that support your view. This is Paul.

You can quote from Scripture if you wish, and we can discuss that, as there is nothing in all of Scripture that suggests God could not legally pardon sin without Christ's dying, but I'm particularly interested in your supporting your view from Christ's teaching because it is evident that Christ taught the reverse of what you are suggesting.

For example, in the parable of the prodigal son, the father went looking for the son while he was a long way off. When the son tried to repeat his speech, the father wouldn't hear of it. This story teaches the exact opposite of the idea that God requires some sort of payment before he will be willing to forgive.

In the parable of the man who owed the debt of 10,000 talents, an enormous son, more than 100 million in today's money, the king freely forgave the debt. Freely.

When the publican and pharisee were praying, the publican smote his chest, and asked God, "Be merciful to me, a sinner!" and went away justified.

Something often forgotten is that Jesus Christ Himself forgave sin. For example, He forgave the paralytic man's sins. Jesus Christ was (and is) as holy as God. If no man can come before God because of sin, because God is so holy, then no one could come before Jesus Christ either. Yet people did come before Christ, and Christ forgave them, without anyone's having died to give Him the legal right to do so.

When the woman caught in adultery came before Christ, Christ received her, and said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

There's nothing in Christ's life or teaching which in any way suggests that God cannot legally forgive sin unless Christ died. However, there are many things in His life and teachings which demonstrate that God freely forgives sin.

Correction to what? Before Lucifer's rebellion, the law was unknown. It came as a surprise to the angel's that there even was a law. They simply obeyed God because that was their nature.

They could hardly agree that something was right and fair and equitable that they did not know existed.



I've produced the quote many times.





The Great Controversy is over God's character. The law is a transcript of God's character, which brings it into question too. If God is trustworthy, so is His law. If God is not trustworthy, neither is the law.



The law is a transcript of God's character. Where do you get the idea that it's a third party?



The law is a transcript of God's character! God simply is Himself, and that upholds the law.





Death is the inevitable result of sin.



Death is the result of sin. The sacrificial offerings were intended to teach this.

If the first thing Jesus did revealed the love of God fully, what purpose did it serve Him to hang around thereafter? From what I hear you saying the sum of His mission was to win back our love and obedience by fully revealing the love of God. If I'm hearing you right, it stands to reason Jesus satisfied this goal in the first thing He did. Seems to me His death was unnecessary.


Your analogy doesn't fit. Jesus cannot pardon and save sinners simply because He wants to. Law and justice forbid it. He must first pay their sin debt of death before He can legally pardon and save penitent sinners. Even though Jesus paid the price on the cross to redeemed us, law and justice forbid Him to pardon and save impenitent sinners.

TE: If I ask you for something from Christ's teaching, and you quote me something else, you're not being responsive to my request. I'm not rejecting the quotes you provided. They're simply not responsive to my request. From Ellen White's writings it's clear that she did not believe Christ had to die in order for God to have the legal right to pardon because God offered Lucifer pardon many times without Christ's having died.

MM: You have never quoted Jesus where He says the opposite of what Sister White said. Your interpretation of her comments about Lucifer are not supported in the Bible. She never once said Jesus would have pardoned Lucifer after he sinned. She plainly said there was no hope for him after he sinned.

---

TE: In addition, I believe I asked you to produce something from Christ's teachings that support your view. This is Paul.

MM: Paul spoke for Jesus, did he not? Are you suggesting Paul didn't speak on behalf of Jesus, that his epistles do not count as the words of Jesus?

---

MM: The entire sacrificial system makes it clear pardon and salvation are conditional upon a substitute suffering and dying in the place of penitent sinners. It was not optional. It is not merely symbolic. Law and justice demand of God the substitutional death of Jesus in order to have the legal right to pardon and save penitent sinners. No death, no pardon. No pardon, no salvation.

TE: Again, I would ask, if the way you see things is correct, why did no one see it this way until Anselm?

MM: Are you suggesting sacrificing an animal was optional, that it was not required, that it did not symbolize what was necessary to obtain pardon and salvation?

---

TE: There's nothing in Christ's life or teaching which in any way suggests that God cannot legally forgive sin unless Christ died.

MM: Except for the fact He suffered and died on the cross.

---

TE: However, there are many things in His life and teachings which demonstrate that God freely forgives sin.

MM: All of the examples you cited teach that God has the legal right to freely pardon and save penitent sinners because Jesus paid the price on the cross to redeem us. He earned this right from the foundation of the world, way before Jesus shared the stories you cited. His stories were based on this truth and principle. It's called - merit!

I quoted this, MM.



I don't understand how you could read this quote and not see that Christ's death was necessary.



I didn't make an analogy. I stated a fact. If you owe me a debt, I can forgive your debt, because you owe it to me.



You are asserting this with no proof. Where in Scripture do we read this?



Where in Scripture do we read this?



Where in Scripture do we read this?

TE: [Pre-fall angels] could hardly agree that something was right and fair and equitable that they did not know existed.

MM: Where in the Bible is this idea taught?

---

MM: But, are [Lucifer's] objections fair and right and equitable? Or, are they bogus? Do you know of any in heaven who feels the law of God is arbitrary? Did they suspect it was arbitrary until Jesus suffered and died on the cross? If so, please post the quotes which support it.

TE: I've produced the quote many times.

MM: The quote you posted does not say the unfallen beings weren't sure if the law was fair and right and equitable.

---

TE: The Great Controversy is over God's character. The law is a transcript of God's character, which brings it into question too. If God is trustworthy, so is His law. If God is not trustworthy, neither is the law.

MM: You might be able to apply this to the first four commandments, but you cannot apply it to the last six. Besides, where in the Bible or the SOP does it say the unfallen beings were ever unsure if God's law and love are fair and right and equitable?

---

TE: The law is a transcript of God's character. Where do you get the idea that it's a third party?

MM: Where did you get the idea it's not? All throughout the Bible and the SOP the law is spoken of as a separate entity. While here in the flesh Jesus obeyed the law. The law is a transcript of God's character - but it is not His character. His character is a separate entity.

---

TE: Death is the result of sin. The sacrificial offerings were intended to teach this.

MM: The reason sinners die, according to you, is because God pulls the plug. The inevitable result of sinning, therefore, is God will eventually resurrect sinners and pull the plug.

What? Your sentence here makes no sense. It's like saying "you've never quoted Jesus where he talks about cake batter."



Of course not. They aren't discussed in the Bible. They are discussed by Ellen White. I brought this up because you were quoting her.



Of course she did. She said, "Again and again he was offered pardon."



She said the opposite.



I don't understand where you are getting your ideas from. She says:

a)Lucifer was offered pardon "again and again."
b)Before being banished from heaven, Satan was given the opportunity to confess his sin.

I don't know how one could misunderstand this to mean that Lucifer had not sinned, or that God did not offer him pardon.

---



Surely you understand that Paul is not Jesus. If I asked for something from Ellen White, would you quote Paul?



Surely you understand that Jesus and Paul were different people. I asked you to quote from Jesus, and first you quoted from Ellen White. I pointed out that this was not Jesus, so you quote from Paul. Why not quote from Jesus?

The difficulty is that Jesus simply did not teach the ideas you have.



My only point in this discussion has been regarding the underlined portion. You assert this, but offer no proof from the teachings of Jesus, nor from Scripture. You just repeat it.

There are many ways to interpret the meaning of the sacrificial offerings. Just because you see their meaning in one way does not mean your understanding is correct. What is there in Scripture that causes you to think that God could not legally pardon sin without a sacrifice? There's nothing that even remotely comes close to saying this. You have to read this into Scripture, rather than interpret a text to say this, because there's no text which says this.

For example, "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." Scripture says this, very clearly. One can understand that Christ had to die in order for our sins to be forgiven. But why? That's the whole question.

Now if the text said, "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin, because God would not have been legally able to pardon sin" that would answer the question. But the text does not say that, nor is there any context to suggest that this was even an issue.

Again, in Paul's time, no culture on earth had this idea in mind as to the meaning of sacrifice. No human had this idea. It's impossible that Paul could have had this meaning in mind. It didn't yet exist.



I'm speaking to your idea that God could not legally pardon sin with a death payment. If this idea is Scriptural, why did nobody see it for over a millennium after Scripture had been written?

---



That Jesus suffered and died on the cross is as much an argument for how I see things as to how you do. More, I would say, because I can quote things from both Scripture, and Jesus' own teachings which bear out what I've been saying.

The meaning of the sacrifice is what's being discussed. You can't, with any reasonableness, assert the fact of the sacrifice to support your theory as to its meaning.



There's not one thing I wrote which teaches this!! Let's just choose one at random. Please explain to me how the parable of the prodigal son teaches that God has the legal right to freely pardon because of Jesus' death.



How does the parable of the prodigal son teach that sins are pardoned because of merit? The point of the story is the exact opposite of this. The son's father forgave his sins because of his love for his son, not because of any merit.

TE: I don't know how one could misunderstand this to mean that Lucifer had not sinned, or that God did not offer him pardon.

MM: She never says God was willing to pardon Lucifer after he was guilty of sinning. Law and justice requires death for sin. God cannot disregard the requirements of law and justice. It was not within His rights to pardon Lucifer without shedding the blood of Jesus as a substitute.

On the contrary, she makes it clear there was no hope for Lucifer the moment he ventured to transgress the law of God. There was no more God do for him. The instant he sinned he was beyond hope, beyond saving, beyond redemption. The life and death of Jesus would have meant nothing to him, it would have done nothing for him, it would not have melted his heart or inspired him to love and obey God. By the time he sinned he had gone too far, he had passed the point of no return.

TE: Surely you understand that Jesus and Paul were different people. I asked you to quote from Jesus, and first you quoted from Ellen White. I pointed out that this was not Jesus, so you quote from Paul. Why not quote from Jesus? The difficulty is that Jesus simply did not teach the ideas you have.

MM: Jesus Himself said,

John
16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show [it] unto you.

He waited to tell us the rest of the story through the apostles and prophets. But I hear you saying Jesus didn't speak through the apostles and the prophets after He returned to heaven, that He didn't wait to share certain truths through the apostles and prophets. I simply cannot agree wit such a position.