True, God had to not only demonstrate that He and His law are loving and just, He also had to demonstrate that Satan is a liar. The fact Jesus clearly demonstrated the truth about God before He suffered and died on the cross is evidence that He had to suffer and die on the cross to demonstrate additonal truths, namely, to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice - in so doing He also demonstrated that Satan is a liar.

This whole thing is poor logic. First of all is the fallacy that because Christ revealed the Father's character perfectly before the cross does not mean the cross did not do this. There's several problems with this idea.

First of all, not everyone perceives truth in the same way. Someone might be able to see God's character revealed in how Christ washed His disciples feet, or in how He treated the woman caught in adultery, but not see it in some other action. Everybody sees it in the cross though. The cross is a revelation of God's character like no other.

Let's say the sun were a perfect revelation of God. The sun shining on the north pole at midnight during the summer would be a perfect revelation of God. However, that would not deny that the same sun shining at noon on the equator would be a brighter revelation.

Christ perfectly revealed God's character in all that He did, even when He was a carpenter. Using your logic, He needn't have entered into a public ministry at all, since He had already perfectly revealed God.

A second point is that even if your logic hadn't been incorrect and additional truths were required by the cross, it would by no means follow that one of these truths was that Christ had to die to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice, as you put it. It would only follow that there was some additional truth, not some specific additional truth.

A third point is that you write "in so doing He also demonstrated that Satan is a liar," but this seems to miss the whole point. What demonstrated that Satan was a liar was Satan's character being manifest in how he treated Christ, not by Christ's satisfying some supposed legal requirement.

MM, I see several problems with your ideas, which I've mentioned before, but I'll repeat here.

First of all, there is the problem of not being historically viable. Nobody viewed sacrifice along the lines you are suggesting until many hundreds of years after Christ died. It's not historically possible that Paul had this idea in mind.

I've also asked you to produce the idea that Christ had to die for God to be able to legally pardon from anyone before Calvin expressed it.

I believe I've also asked you to explain why the Eastern Orthodox church does not have these ideas. If I haven't asked you before, I'll ask you now. If the ideas that Christ had to die in order for God to be able to legally pardon is Scriptural, why doesn't the Eastern Orthodox church believe this? They assert that they don't believe this idea because it was introduced by Anselm, is not in Scripture, and was not taught by the earth church fathers. What would be your answer to this?

I've also asked you to produce the idea you've been asserting from the life and teachings of Christ.

Tom, would you agree this study is going nowhere, that you are convinced what I believe is wrong and that what you believe is right?

I don't recall that you've dealt with some of the points I've brought up. In particular.

A.Historical question in regards to Calvin.
B.Historical question in regards to Orthodox church.
C.Historical question in regards to Paul.
D.Scriptural question in regards to Jesus' teaching.

I'm just giving a very brief form here, as I've described the questions elsewhere. I'd be interested in your answer to these questions.

In regards to the views themselves, I'm sure they will come up again some other time, so we can take a hiatus from it, no problem.

A. Historical question in regards to Calvin.

I cannot verify that no one articulated it before Calvin.

B.Historical question in regards to Orthodox church.

That they do not advocate it is insufficient evidence against it. It's hard to trust them when they also advocate Sunday sacredness and the natural immortality of the soul.

C.Historical question in regards to Paul.

Paul supported it.

D.Scriptural question in regards to Jesus' teaching.

Jesus fulfilled it.

Regarding A, OK.

Regarding B, you're not considering the issue. Regarding Sunday and the immortality of the soul, there actually were people who believed these false teachings in the first few centuries. There wasn't anyone who believed the view you are espousing. That's why the Orthodox church doesn't believe it, because they split from the Catholic church before the view was invented. Had they split after Anselm, instead of before, they would have believed it too.

Regarding C, nobody viewed Sacrifice they way you are suggesting in any culture anywhere in the world, including the Jews. (at least, I'm aware of no such evidence, which I was asking to you provide). Sacrifice was viewed in the way Paul expressed in Romans 12 (also David, in Ps. 51).

Specifically, no culture believed the reason for sacrifice was to give the Deity they were worshiping the legal right to pardon them.

Regarding D, the question was for you to produce something from the teachings of Jesus Christ where He taught that God could not legally forgive someone unless someone died.

B doesn't matter to me. We disagree on C and D. Neither you nor I can verify our positions from secular history. Thus, we must rely on the Bible and the SOP.

We both agree - "In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin." {Con 21.3} But we disagree as to why. I believe it is because that's how God set things up in the beginning, before He created FMAs. "By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors." {6BC 1095.4}

I'm not sure what you believe. From what I've gathered over the years of studying with you, it seems to me you have a modified version of the moral influence theory. FMAs, men and angels and other beings, needed to see God demonstrate self-sacrificing love in order to deal with Satan's lies and accusations about His character and kingdom. Living and dying the perfect life and death addressed this need.

How did I do?

Whether it matters to you or not is immaterial as to whether it's a valid point. It is a valid point, and one which should be addressed by a correct theory.



How so? Regarding C, I asked you to produce some evidence that some culture viewed sacrifice as meaning what you suggest it means. You can't do so, so I would think you would agree with me that this meaning did not exist. Why are we in disagreement?

Also, you should agree with me on D, that Jesus Christ did not teach your idea, since I've asked you on many occasions to produce something of His which corroborates the idea you have, and have refused to do so. I assume you refuse to do so because you can't think of anything to adduce, to therefore I would think you must agree with me.

Let's try it this way. Can we agree on the following:

a.No culture had the idea of sacrifice that you are suggesting (that sacrifice was necessary in order to give the Deity the legal right to pardon) in Paul's time or before.

b.Christ did not teach that He had to die in order for His Father to have the legal right to pardon.

If you disagree with either a. or b., please produce some evidence to support your disagreement.



Although the truth cannot be proven by secular history alone, this does not mean that false positions can be disproven by secular history.



God didn't "set things up" in some certain way, if by this you mean there were several different options possible, and God chose one. What God tells us is so He tells us because that's the way things are. He doesn't arbitrarily make things a certain way.

That is, sin results in death not because God said so, because God warns us of this fact because it is true.



Christus Victor is a closer view to what I believe. The MIT, as taught by Abelard had the idea that we are righteous by living as Jesus lived. It also had the idea that Christ's death on the cross was due to God's plan, as opposed to the Christus Victor view. To understand more about Christus Victor, and how it differs from the MIT, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor



That's part of it.



I assume you mean in terms of stating what I believe?

I'm a bit perplexed as to why you do not know what I believe, since I've written this out for you so many times, and in a lot of detail.

If you look at the chapter "It Is Finished," you will see reasons given for the death of Christ. I believe the reasons she gave here. You will see that in 11 pages she never mentioned that Christ died so that God would have the legal right to pardon. In fact, there are only a couple of sentences in the whole chapter which could even be construed as forensic.

At any rate, please take a look at that chapter, and that's what I believe regarding why Jesus had to die. If you wish, we could discuss the chapter point by point.

SC 33
Calvary stands as a memorial of the amazing sacrifice required to atone for the transgression of the divine law. Let us not regard sin as a trivial thing. {SC 33.1}

Tom, you seem to omit this aspect of the atonement. Jesus' death was required to atone for breaking the law.

SC 35
We have been great sinners, but Christ died that we might be forgiven. The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf. {SC 35.4}

Here she plainly says Jesus died to make forgiveness possible. You seem to discount this aspect of justice and forgiveness.