Tom, as you can see, not everyone is in agreement with your views regarding the sin debt of death Jesus paid for us on the cross. You have ignored my posts on this thread for the last couple of days. I'm not sure why. The quotes I've been posting clearly reveal what God shared with Sister White about it. They represent God's thoughts on the matter.

God has "bound" Himself by His word, by His law, and by His justice to enforce the execution of the death penalty upon sinners. Whether or not this or that father of past generations understood it in the same light is immaterial. They were either in the throes of the Dark Ages or still coming out of it. God raised up the Remnant Church after the Great Disappointment and revealed His thoughts on the matter through a modern day messenger. Here is what He said:

“By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” (6BC 1095)

“In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” (CON 22)

“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.” (1SM 340)

I think the legal aspect is important for two reasons.

1) For God to act in harmony with His own character.

God will soon vindicate His justice before the universe. His justice requires that sin shall be punished; His mercy grants that sin shall be pardoned through repentance and confession. Pardon can come only through His only begotten Son; Christ alone can expiate sin--and then only when sin is repented of and forsaken. Man has severed his connection with God, and his soul has become palsied and strengthless by the deadly poison of sin. But there was a time when the proclamation sounded through the heavenly courts, I have found a ransom! A divine life is given as man's ransom; One equal with the Father has become man's substitute. {UL 49.5}

2) Because all Satan’s charges were based on the law. Therefore, God had to find a way to legally pardon man, otherwise Satan would accuse Him of injustice.

“In the opening of the great controversy, Satan had declared that the law of God could not be obeyed, that justice was inconsistent with mercy, and that, should the law be broken, it would be impossible for the sinner to be pardoned. Every sin must meet its punishment, urged Satan; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice. When men broke the law of God, and defied His will, Satan exulted. It was proved, he declared, that the law could not be obeyed; man could not be forgiven. Because he, after his rebellion, had been banished from heaven, Satan claimed that the human race must be forever shut out from God's favor. God could not be just, he urged, and yet show mercy to the sinner.” {DA 761.4}

“By dying in our behalf, he gave an equivalent for our debt. Thus he removed from God all charge of lessening the guilt of sin. By virtue of my oneness with the Father, he says, my suffering and death enable me to pay the penalty of sin. By my death a restraint is removed from his love. His grace can act with unbounded efficiency.” {YI, December 16, 1897 par. 7}

"By my death a restraint is removed from his love." I wonder what kind of restraint she is talking about? Do you know?

Here are other places where she speaks of God loving us if we ...

Provision has been made whereby God can love us as He loves His Son, and it is through our oneness with Christ and with each other. {TMK 172.3}

Christ has shown us how much God can love and our Redeemer suffer in order to secure our complete restoration. {UL 191.2}

We are to be one with Christ as He is one with the Father, and the Father will love us as He loves His Son. {AG 259.5}

If we love Jesus we shall become heirs of God, and the Father will love us as He loves His Son Jesus Christ. {HP 254.5}

The Lord then can love fallen man as He does His own Son; and He declares that He will be satisfied with nothing less than this in our behalf. {1MCP 245.4}

This will raise fallen man; for the Lord has promised that if we preserve this unity, God will love us as He loved His Son; the sinner will be saved, and God eternally glorified. {SD 295.4}

Debbie, when one is accustomed to seeing something in a certain way, it's difficult to see things in a different way. For example, the Jews were accustomed to seeing Jesus as a conquering Messiah, and indeed, there are many, many texts which present this idea. So because they were accustomed to looking at things in a certain way, they missed some things.

Here are some "what if" questions I quoted a couple of posts previously:

What if the Fall of Genesis is not about the violation of a law, necessitating punishment. Perhaps it is about the venom of deception concerning God’s character and this led (and leads) humankind to partake of the poison fruit (anything from hedonism to moralism), requiring healing?

What if, rather than separating us from the love of God, the Fall triggered God’s great quest to descend into the chasm to seek and find the lost where they had stumbled? What if where sin abounds, grace abounds much more?

What if forgiveness is not something that is earned through sacrifices or punishment but is freely offered as antivenin to all who will look to the Crucified One after the pattern of the bronze serpent?

What if God was not punishing Jesus on the Cross, but rather, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself?

I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding these questions.

Regarding Jesus' teaching, the particular point I have been taking issue with is that Jesus' death is necessary in order for God to be able to legally pardon us. Jesus did not teach this. His teachings represent God as freely forgiving us, not because a price was paid. For example, in the parable of the prodigal son, the wayward son couldn't even get out his rehearsed speech, the father was so happy to see him. Another example is in the parable of the 10,000 talents, the king (representing God) freely forgave the debt. In Jesus' own life, we see Him freely forgiving, which represents God's freely forgiving, since when we see Jesus, we see the Father.

Regarding the question regarding the fathers, my point is a bit indirect. I'm asking if the penal substitution theory is indeed Biblical, why did no one express it before Calvin? We (as SDA's) have doctrines which are unusual considering mainstream Protestantism, such as the Sabbath, the state of the dead, not eating unclean meat to name a couple, but these ideas can all be found in the writings of Christians shortly after Christ.

Something as fundamental as the meaning of Christ's death (assuming penal substitution is it) is something one would have expected to have been explained by Jesus Christ Himself, and written about sometime before 16 centuries after His death.

One further comment, you wrote:



This is exactly what I believe. We are healed by Christ's death. Healing is exactly what we need. Not penal substitution, but healing.

You wrote that I don't seem to be understanding that the idea of satisfaction and the idea of a debt owed to God that has to be paid are one and the same thing. They aren't one and the same thing. Satisfaction is of necessity a debt owed to God, but a debt owed to God is not of necessity satisfaction. Therefore they are not one and the same thing.

I appreciate the comments regarding patristic literature. I'll comment later.

Regarding something we were discussing earlier, I'm a bit unclear regarding whether you view God to be treating the wicked and the righteous differently. I wrote:



Rosangela, I didn't see your post #100022, which may be addressing this last point.

Tom, ignoring Colin's and my comments is not going to make them go away. Eventually you'll have to address them.

Are you talking about this?





What are you referring to here?



What are you referring to here?



No, this isn’t correct. A great majority of debts have nothing to do with penalty. A debt is simply something owed.



If Jesus had not died, we would have died. God gave us Christ so that we need not die. Christ’s death substitutes for us because without it we would have suffered His death. I believe one can rightly infer this from the sacrificial system. So I basically agree with this paragraph, although I see the penalty as not an arbitrary or imposed one, but simply as the result of sin (that is, the law pronounces death as the result of sin because those who sin die; even if the law did not pronounce this, it would still be true).




You do?



It seems clear to me that Jesus was non-violent, and demonstrated that God is non-violent, as the whole purpose of Jesus’ mission was the revelation of God. He told us, “When you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father.“ His teachings on the Sermon on the Mount I think are particularly clear regarding Jesus’ ideas in regards to violence.

Regarding the war in heaven, from the SOP we know:

a.Force is not a principle of God’s government.
b.Compelling force is not to be found in God’s government, only in Satan’s.
c.Force is the last resort of every false religion.

From “The Desire of Ages“


Satan was vanquished not by force, but by revelation. He was “cast down” by way of Jesus Christ’s revealing Satan’s true character. The Great Controversy is not a war of force or violence, but of ideas.



I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.


Agreed!! Saving us from sin is *how* He saves us from death.


You know, I can hardly think of 3 people who have more *different* views of salvation than you, MM and Rosangela. I find it odd indeed you’re wanting to joint your theology with theirs. To illustrate the point, it would be really interesting to have you, MM and Rosangela write out what you understand Romans 5:12-18, and Romans 7:13-Romans 8:4 means. I trust you would agree that these passages are vital insofar as one's understanding of salvation is concerned, yet if you were to do as I suggested, you would see that your viewpoints vary greatly. You would also find that my point of view is closest to your own.

It also strikes me as odd that someone who holds such a non-mainline view in regards to the Godhead that you hold who take the overall stance that you take. Regarding your statement that guilt is what is pardoned, I am reminded of the following by E. J. Waggoner:



Do you agree with Waggoner's points here?

Is this the basis of your definition of arbitrary punishment?

How is Christ's substitution for our death not according to law, fixed by law?

What do you say to Rosangela & MM's SOP and classic quotes on justice and death penalty??

God judges with violence, including retribution for rejection of grace: that's clear from Biblical theology - drawing on all instances, like Jericho and Saul saving that king from his nation's massacre. That is true alongside "Gospel peace".

MM, Rosangela and I differ on the fine points of principles like Christ's substitution and Christ's humanity, but we agree on principles! What do you say to the proofs of the principle? Without these principles there is in fact no Gospel, since revelation of love is part of the whole but never saves by itself: implied principles are necessary.

I'll respond to just this for now, and the rest as I get opportunity. Neither MM nor Rosangela have the concept of solidarity in regards to their concept of salvation that you have (at least, that I think you have). For example, they would both (I think) interpret Romans 5:18 completely differently than you would. Do you not see Romans 5:18 as important in regards to a correct understanding of the Gospel?

I am by no means alone in my understanding of the atonement among 1888 fans (by fans, I mean 1888 MSC, which I assume you have some sort of ties with; by ties, I mean, you've read their literature and by and large agreed with it; please correct me if I'm wrong about this). Also my view of the judgment is similar to many of theirs (although, to be fair, many disagree as well).

It seems to me that you may be throwing out the bath with the bath water. But I may be way off base here, so let me ask a clarifying question. Are you basically in agreement with the message that Wieland presents? (excepting questions relating to the Godhead)

God has "bound" Himself by His word, by His law, and by His justice to enforce the execution of the death penalty upon sinners. Whether or not this or that father of past generations understood it in the same light is immaterial. They were either in the throes of the Dark Ages or still coming out of it. God raised up the Remnant Church after the Great Disappointment and revealed His thoughts on the matter through a modern day messenger - Ellen White.

Tom, what do you think she meant by each of the following insights? Do they support your idea that Jesus died to influence us to respond to God's love and choose salvation, that He didn't also have to die to satisfy a legal requirement?

“By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” (6BC 1095)

“In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” (CON 22)

“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.” (1SM 340)