No, the idea I get with the expression "born to die" is that He was born to accomplish a special mission through His death. This was an aspect of His mission, in the same way that we could speak of Him as "born to live in obedience to God" as another aspect of His mission (which does not include His death). Christ's mission has separate (although interrelated) aspects.

The idea I get from "born to die" is that the purpose of His being born was to die.

I think a better expression would be "born to reveal" or "born to be the Word of God" (which means the same thing) or even "the Word was made flesh" (how do you like that one?).

From EGW, the "whole purpose" of His mission was the revelation of God, so that seems like a good way of grouping the other inter-related things you referred to.

Ah, no, EGW emphasized God's character lived out by Jesus as an aspect of his Gospel less mentioned - in every generation...Getting used to 'agape' is easier now, after much prominence in preaching and literature in Adventism, recently.

The Gospel isn't JUST that Jesus was born to die, to "save his people from their sin": his begotten, divine Sonship, his human birth, life, death, resurrection,...ascension, and high priesthood are each indispensable and integral parts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "'Born to'- die" is itself always supported by "'born to' live" and "'born to' die and rise again": righteous life for righteous death, obligating resurrection...

The legal condition is the shedding of worthy blood to fulfill the everlasting covenant, a covenant created for effecting our salvation, starting with forgiveness... Jesus' death cannot be but a quirk of human nature reacting to the Son of man's ministry - "just" killed by some influencial, evil men: we are heirs of Christ be prearrangement, and that inheritance is salvivic so there is NO coincidence in Christ's death at the hands of sinful man as merely a dramatic portrayal of self-less agape. Christ's death was planned, prepared for by the Godhead with the "testament" of Hebrews - effective only on death, for Calvary is the only method and avenue for saving the world.

PS: Just seen your last post, Tom. Your point isn't disputed - God's truth must be believed...! You're avoiding any arguments put your way for Jesus to need to die have power to forgive. Just disagreeing is no answer: your position is part of the rest of the Gospel teaching, but EGW also follows the Bible which also has a condition for our forgiveness like eternal life for us has a famous condition. Are you waiting for us to produce the proof? - or don't you think we've produced proof yet? What would you consider proof??

The "Christus Victor" paradigm denies that Christ's death was planned in the sense that God caused it to happen. God knew it would happen, given than man chose to sin, as it is inevitable that sinful man would choose to kill Christ, since man hates God (which is because God is good, and man is evil). The Acts 2 passage I've been quoting lays this out.

Certainly Calvary is the only method and avenue for saving the world, as Jesus Himself pointed out in John 3:16. The question is, of course, what the mechanism is which saves man. It looks like Jesus saw faith as that mechanism.

I see no evidence whatsoever from Jesus Christ that He saw His death in terms of enabling God to be able to legally forgive us. Do you?

As Christ paid the legal requirement of the wages of sin, which is death, God is legally able to forgive us. Correct?

No, Tom, John 3:16 makes no mention of Jesus' death - just his begotten Sonship, and our impending death...: the legal, Biblical basis for Jesus' death is found in this verse only because of other verses, like Jn 3:14, but especially the entire sacrificial system as the graceous way of salvation embodied in Jesus.

But first, the mechanism of salvation is not faith - faith is the thankful response to the actual mechanism and is only the instrument for accessing salvation itself. The mechanism is Jesus, including his death (Rom 4:25) and the means is grace.

Jesus' ransom isn't paid to the Devil but to God, whose law condemns sinfulness - if a payment can be perceived at all. These texts point to legal issues and salvation by Christ's death...
Sacrifices synonymously for sin and salvation from death is central to Bible history and teaching and these sacrifices embodied and point to Jesus' sacrifice of himself.

This is not elementary for you, too? Jesus' death saves because it redeems sinful man from eternal death rather than just being hounded to death by his enemies at a coincidental fate...? The Gospel is saved from death to live reborn the righteous life of Christ: Christ's death is the legal link to the kingdom, but you don't believe that, do you? Rom 7:1-4 ununciates what was understood plainly by Jesus' "ransom for many". Peter had to accept Jesus' body for salvation or have nothing of him, remember.

While we may debate this and differ, the Gospel of salvation through Jesus turns on his righteous death under the curse of the law of God. It may be your position loses the Gospel of salvation for wrongly rejecting its cornestone on a point of law you don't accept.

More study!!

Amen, brother Daryl! Brother Tom hasn't seen it yet...(!) Corret, as per the sanctuary service and its fulfilment in & by Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

We await Tom's next comment.

Well, Ellen White doesn't use the term "legally," but she does say that

"Through Christ Justice is enabled to forgive without sacrificing one jot of its exalted holiness." {GCB, October 1, 1899 par. 21}

"Through him [Christ] mercy was enabled to deal justly in punishing the transgressor of the law, and justice was enabled to forgive without losing its dignity or purity." {ST, June 18, 1896 par. 2}

Which means that, if God forgave without the cross, His justice would lose its dignity and purity.

Please express this same thought without using the word "legal".

Sure it does. The word "gave" has reference to Jesus' death. Here's another example:



That Jesus was referring to His death in vs. 16 is very clear from the context:



An EGW comment:



God gave His only-begotten Son to death. The "gave" references Christ's death, so John 3:16 involves Christ's death. That's the meaning of the verse. We are saved by believing in Christ, who died for our sins.

Another EGW comment:



This is the meaning of John 3:16.

I'm a bit amazed that you would take issue with John 3:16 having to do with Christ's death. I'm a bit confused as to what you would think the verse means. I've always understood it to mean what EGW has explained in DA 175. Christ was lifted up at Calvary. He said "If I be lifted up, I will draw all unto Me." As we respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit, who speaks to us of Christ lifted up for our sins, we repent and are born again.



This is one of my points. The entire sacrificial system was not set up to communicate truths we understand by means of Western justice. The concepts you are speaking of didn't exist in Paul's time, or before. The people who lived then simply didn't think in these terms.

This is why I've been bringing up Jesus Christ. He spoke often of His death, but He never communicated the idea that He had to die for legal reasons, in order for God to be able to legally forgive. This idea of sacrifice simply didn't exist.

Here's a couple of texts which deal with the meaning of sacrifice:





These are themes which were understood, and with which Jesus dealt.



An EGW comment:



Salvation is "through faith," which is to say, it is the mechanism by which we are saved.

In John 3:16, Jesus says if we believe in Him (which is to say, have faith in Him) we will not perish (which is to say, be saved).



Jesus never taught this.



None of these were Jesus, so my point stands, which is that there is no evidence that Jesus taught that the purpose of His death was to that God could legally pardon us.



Of course. But what is the purpose and meaning of these sacrifices? You are suggesting meanings which were given by Anselm and Calvin, men who lived 1,000 and 1,500 years after the death of Christ, ideas which no contemporaries of Jesus nor of previous generations had.

Where is there any evidence that any church father had the understanding you are suggesting of the death of Christ?



I don't know what point you're making here.



Colin, it seems to me you are simply reading into texts an idea which you already have, rather than considering what the texts would have meant to the people to whom they were written. There is no historical or cultural foundation for either those who spoke or heard or read these words to have understood them along the lines of which you are speaking.



If this were the case, then it would seem that no one before Anselm or Calvin was saved, because there is no evidence that anyone had this idea before Anselm. What do you do with this?

Your assertion here to me seems to be misunderstanding how salvation takes place. We are not saved because we properly understand a theory of atonement. We are saved by having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. God, through Christ, reveals Himself to us, His live, His character, and makes an appeal to us through the Holy Spirit to repent of our sins and give our life to Him. If we respond, we are saved to eternal life, regardless of whether our preferred theory of the atonement is Christus Victor, MIT, penal substitution, or whatever.



Something we can agree on!