Tom,

Is there a legal aspect to justification or isn't there? If there isn't a legal aspect to justification, imputed righteousness makes no sense.

Great question, Rosangela. There is a legal aspect to justification, as to justify means "to set right," and the law is the standard by which this is judged.

It seems to me that imputed righteousness and a declaration of righteousness is the same thing. So that to say that righteousness have been imputed to someone is the same thing as saying that the person has been declared righteous. Do you agree with this?

Yes, but if there is a legal aspect to justification, this means that there is a legal aspect to pardon. Why then do you take issue with this?

I don't. Any pardon effected would have to be in harmony with God's law.

I take issue with the idea that the death of Christ was necessary in order for God to be able to legally pardon us (i.e., as a constraint against God, rather than something necessary for us)

I don't get your point.
God has a law not for Himself, but for the benefit of His creatures.
When He grants pardon, this pardon has to be in harmony with this law - again, not for Himself, but for the benefit of His creatures.
And this means that when we transgressed He had to be able to find a way to legally pardon us - again, not for Himself, but for the benefit of His creatures.
He could just say, "OK, you have transgressed my law but I forgive you" without any regard for the punishment which was due to us. But then His pardon would be illegal - because His law has a penalty.

"A government, of whatever character, requires a governor. This world has a governor,--the God of the universe. ... In God's moral government, which is a government based upon a distinction between right and wrong, law is essential to secure right action. ... As Creator of all, God is governor over all, and He is bound to enforce His law throughout the universe. To require less from His creatures than obedience to His law would be to abandon them to ruin. To fail to punish transgression of His law would be to place the universe in confusion. The moral law is God's barrier between the human agent and sin. Thus infinite wisdom has placed before men the distinction between right and wrong, between sin and holiness." {ST, June 5, 1901}

The law is simply a transcript of God's character. The law did not impose any constraints upon God. The existence of the law makes it no more difficult for God to forgive than it would have been had God not made known this transcript.

To say that when God pardons, this must be in harmony with His law, means exactly the same thing as saying that when God pardons, He does so in a way which is in harmony with His own character. Again, the law does not change this in any respect.

The issue involved with God's forgiving without regard for conditions has not to do with illegality, but with ineffectiveness. The following expresses the thoughts I'm trying to communicate:

Is it in harmony with God’s character to punish transgression, or isn’t it in harmony with His character to punish transgression?
If it is in harmony with His character to punish transgression, then He couldn’t pardon transgression without this transgression being punished.

Again,
"To fail to punish transgression of His law would be to place the universe in confusion." {ST, June 5, 1901 par. 5}

Does God/his law pardon us without dealing with our sin & guilt to do so? Was "forgive them for they know not what they do" not possible only because of his own self-sacrifice?

As for Fifield: propitiation is by definition "suffering God's wrath" (depending which of that or expiation one views as involving wrath), but neither means a sacrifice "for sin": each is an appeasement sacrifice! - toward God, either with or without wrath involved. I hope Fifield was sincerely mistaken in arguing that Christ died to appease our sin, reconcile our sin with God. Wrath in or out, but, please, no propitiation for sin.

Otherwise, God reconciled us to himself by his Son's death, indeed. The rest of the story is our discussion!...

There is also this bit:The sentence including the bold words doesn't make sense: an arbitrary law annulled for being 'kind' while a law tempting us into sin isn't arbitrary.

This sentence from Fifield has totally confused me.

I believe that it is according to God's character to punish sin in the sense that those who sin should receive the results of the choice they have made, not as something He must do in isolation to the results which the sinner brings upon himself as a result of the choices he has made. For example, in DA 764, EGW points out 5 or 6 times in the space of one paragraph that the destruction of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary action on God's part, but is instead the result of the choice that the unrighteous have made.

It is the nature of sin that it is bad and results in bad things. So God, as a loving Father, warns us of the bad things which sin does. Sin in not bad in its results because God punishes it, but sin is bad because it leads to bad results. This is because the principle upon which it is based, selfishness, can only lead to misery, pain, suffering and death. All of these things are inherent in sin. Satan is the author of sin and all its results.

There are two roads for us to choose from. One is the road of self-sacrificing love, the "law of life for the universe." The principle of this road is to receive from God and give to others (the others including God and our fellows). Satan invented another road, the road of self. Satan has claimed his road is a better road. Now if God arbitrarily does bad things to those who go down Satan's road, this would hardly prove that Satan's road is bad. It would only prove that God does something to those who go down this road. Satan could argue that the road would be fine, if only God would stay out of the way.

The only way to resolve the controversy was to all the results of both roads to be made clear. Jesus Christ did so. He made clear the results of going down both roads.

The "whole purpose" of His mission was "the revelation of God" in order to set men right with Him. As Peter puts it, Christ died to "bring us to God."



Returning to a couple of points I've been making.

1)There is no evidence that Christ taught that He had to die in order for God to be able to legally pardon us.
2)There is no evidence that anyone had this idea until Calvin.

Regarding 1), the only suggestion I've seen put forth that I can think of is that Christ spoke of His life being given as a "ransom for many." To extrapolate from this phrase that He was teaching that He had to die in order for God to be able to legally pardon us is far-fetched, to put it mildly. Many understand this phrase to mean something different from this, and until Calvin, I don't believe anyone understood it this way. Can you cite someone who did?