TE: True pardon results in obedience to the law because it brings the law breaker into harmony with the Lawgiver. When the law is written in the heart, justice is served, because rebellion ceases.

MM: Law and justice require both death and pardon - in that order. Jesus had to die first, and then pardon and salvation became possible. Death is one half and pardon is the other half of the equation. Mere pardon is not enough, death must also come in consequence of man's sin. The following quotes spell it out in plain and simple words.

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 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}

Tom, I realize you believe these quotes must be interpreted to mean that Jesus' death serves to motivate sinners to seek pardon and salvation in God's appointed way, that they do not mean Jesus had to die to satisfy a legal requirement. On this we disagree.

So, to summarize - To whom or what do you think Jesus paid the price to redeem us? What was owed, and with what did He pay it? Why don't sinners or angels have what it takes to pay the debt owed to obtain pardon and salvation? The following quotes speak to the point:

I don't mind saying that Jesus had to die to satisfy a legal requirement, just with your idea that that God could not legally pardon without Christ's dying. That doesn't make any sense, and contradicts the facts. For example, God offered Lucifer pardon again and again, and gave him the chance to be restored to his position if he would confess his sin. This doesn't agree with your idea.

There's nothing in Jesus' teaching which suggests this. I've asked you time and again to produce something from Jesus which suggests this, but you haven't. Surely, if your idea were true, somewhere Jesus would have said something about it.

I've pointed out to you that historically no one in the world had the idea you are suggesting in relation to sacrifice at the time Paul wrote, but you have no comment. The idea of sacrifice which *was* understood was that which Paul laid out in Romans 12.

I've also pointed out that the idea you are suggesting did not exist for many hundreds of years after the NT had been written. I asked you to produce someone before Calvin who expressed this idea, and you haven't responded.



Not to whom, but for whom. The price was paid for those whom God loves.



I'll speak to one of these:



This demonstrates that the price which Christ paid was not a price paid by Christ to the Father, but a price paid by God the Father and God the Son for man. God was crucified with Christ. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself.

It wasn't God against Christ, as you suggest (For example, in suggesting that God treated Christ as if He were sin, being angry at Him, spewing hate, something like that, I don't remember your exact words. Please! Correct me if and where I'm wrong about this. I hope I'm wrong.) but God in Christ.

The whole problem here is a misunderstanding of what the problem is. If we misunderstand the problem, we are bound to misunderstand the solution.

Here's the problem:



The problem is that Satan succeeded in alienating man from God by misrepresenting Him. Christ's death, according to Peter, was to "bring us to God." That's what it's all about. We are brought to God when we see the truth about Him, which is what Jesus revealed.

What did Jesus reveal? One who supernaturally keeps people alive so He can burn their flesh to make them pay for their sins? Or One who suffers Himself, taking the risk of failure and eternal loss, for the sake of His loved ones?

A theology that would make God so callous must be suspect.

TE: For example, God offered Lucifer pardon again and again, and gave him the chance to be restored to his position if he would confess his sin. This doesn't agree with your idea.

MM: You are misrepresenting the facts, Tom. Nowhere in the Bible is it taught that God is willing to pardon sin without shedding the blood of Jesus. Please prove your interpretation of the SOP from the Bible, otherwise stop citing it as if it is undisputed proof. Thank you.

True. Jesus paid the price for those whom the Godhead loves. But this doesn't answer the question, does it?

1. What was the currency used to pay the price to redeem sinners?

2. What was the price?

3. Who determined the ransom price?

4. When was the price paid?

5. To whom was the price paid?

6. What was purchased?

7. What would have happened to A&E if Jesus hadn't agreed to pay the price to redeem sinners?

8. Why couldn't A&E or angels pay the price?

Tom, what do the following quotes mean to you?

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 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}

We can discuss a topic from the standpoint of Scripture only, or we can include the Spirit of Prophecy. It's hardly reasonable for you to attempt to prove things using the Spirit of Prophecy, and then prohibit my using her. I'm stating her position to refute your claims as to her meaning.

You believe she taught that God could not legally pardon without Christ's dying. But she clearly didn't believe this, because she stated that God offered to pardon Lucifer again and again, without Christ's having died. There's no reason for me to prove this from Scripture, because your claim has to do with her position. So I'm refuting your interpretation of her position by using her own words.

Yes, it does.



Regarding 1, God's love and life given in Christ is the currency.

Regarding 2, the price was Jesus' life.

Regarding 3, we required the sacrifice of Jesus' life in order to be saved.

Regarding 4, the price was paid when the life of Christ was given.

Regarding 5, I stated "not to whom, but for whom" and I also stated that it was for those whom God loved.

Regarding 6, we were purchased, we being the human race.

Regarding 7, if Christ had not given His life for the salvation of man, man would have been lost.

Regarding 8, the salvation of man requires the life of Christ, who was (and is) divine. An angel does not have salvific life to give to us.

A question you would get on some other forums to this thread is, do you understand the whole extent of the depravity of sin and does your view of redemption take that into account?

Who are you addressing, Thomas?

Whomever feels concerned.