Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[fccool]

Quote:

The penal substitution theory causes one to consider the death of Christ as if it were an isolated event, but it really can't be understood like that.

And this is one of the reasons that I've started the thread... because this view in fact impacts and twists how we describe the mode of salvation and how we approach evangelism without really understanding the underlying implications.

The way we present the Gospel is in fact that Christ's mission was not only to die, but to suffer.

That's why, while watching Gibson's "The Passion" I somewhat thought that it is repulsive that our presentation of Gospel in fact based on the gruesome details of death, and this becomes the sole basis on which we are supposedly saved... I.E., by mere act of Christ's death, which was a sacrificial substitution with blood of innocent being the absolute necessity for reconciliation. It just does not make any sense.

That's why the satirists would watch the movie, and then comment "Why are they beating him?". And the typical Christian reply follows by literalizing the OT and NT symbolism of sacrificial system... with God desiring a perfect sacrifice in order to forgive us... otherwise there's no other way.

[John317]

And there is NO retribution in God's justice system? So then, Christ's death was not absolutely necessary after all? A charade?

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

Please, read the following from the pen of Ellen White:

"God in His great mercy bore long with Lucifer. He was not immediately degraded from his exalted station when he first indulged the spirit of discontent, nor even when he began to present his false claims before the loyal angels. Long was he retained in heaven. Again and again he was offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission." (GC 495)

In order to believe that Christ's death was not necessary or not part of the plan of salvation, one must ignore much of the Bible and the very clear language of Ellen White in PP 63-69. Those pages leave no doubt.

As long as you are going to quote Ellen White, you may as well quote these things too:

Speaking of the time when God offered Lucifer forgiveness, Ellen White says, "[Lucifer] had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God." PP 39.

Even after Lucifer had gone too far to be forgiven and reinstated, the other angels still had opportunity to return to loyalty to God because they had been blinded by Satan's deceptions. PP 41

The following, in DA 762-763, explains why Christ's death and sacrifice was necessary:

Quote:

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.

But even as a sinner, man was in a different position from that of Satan. Lucifer in heaven had sinned in the light of God's glory. To him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will. This choice was final. There was no more that God could do to save him. But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God.

Through Jesus, God's mercy was manifested to men; but mercy does not set aside justice. The law reveals the attributes of God's character, and not a jot or tittle of it could be changed to meet man in his fallen condition. God did not change His law, but He sacrificed Himself, in Christ, for man's redemption. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." 2 Cor. 5:19.

....God's love has been expressed in His justice no less than in His mercy. Justice is the foundation of His throne, and the fruit of His love. It had been Satan's purpose to divorce mercy from truth and justice. He sought to prove that the righteousness of God's law is an enemy to peace. But Christ shows that in God's plan they are indissolubly joined together; the one cannot exist without the other. "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Ps. 85:10.

By His life and His death, Christ proved that God's justice did not destroy His mercy, but that sin could be forgiven, and that the law is righteous, and can be perfectly obeyed. Satan's charges were refuted. God had given man unmistakable evidence of His love.

Another deception was now to be brought forward. Satan declared that mercy destroyed justice, that the death of Christ abrogated the Father's law. Had it been possible for the law to be changed or abrogated, then Christ need not have died. But to abrogate the law would be to immortalize transgression, and place the world under Satan's control. It was because the law was changeless, because man could be saved only through obedience to its precepts, that Jesus was lifted up on the cross.

Christ's death is not only for the sake of the sinner to learn about God's character. Christ's death was ultimately for the entire universe. His death proved that God could be just and yet show mercy to the sinner, that mercy does not set aside justice and the law. God sacrificed himself in the death of Christ. If this hadn't happened, God could not have forgiven mankind and therefore the whole world would have perished.

God could offer Lucifer pardon as long as he was Lucifer, but as soon as he became settled into rebellion, and became Satan, God could not possibly save him. He had gone too far. Both angels and men reach a point where they can't change.

That is what happened to Adam and Eve the moment they chose to disobey God. Their natures were radically changed. They couldn't undo their act and change back to the way they had been before they sinned. By contrast the natures of the angels didn't change immediately. Some angels changed sides. Humans couldn't change in that way.

[John317]

What was the condition for forgiveness to this rebel? The answer is Repentance. Do you find there any reference to retribution, the payment of the debt, or the need to sacrifice an innocent bystander before God could offer forgiveness to Lucifer? What did the plan to save Lucifer consist of? The answer is Repentance.

If that was the condition for someone who had a perfect knowledge of God’s character, why are you trying to impose a more stringent demand on human beings who know very little about God’s character?

If the condition imposed on Lucifer was repentance, doesn’t it follow that the requirement for humans should be the same? And what could induce humans to repent. Isn’t this a deeper revelation of God’s character?

There are clear answers to these questions regarding the difference between the sins of Adam and the sins of the angels. Until they reached a certain point, Lucifer and his followers "had not at that time fully cast off [their] allegiance to God." PP 39.

Even after Lucifer had gone too far to be forgiven and reinstated, the other angels still had opportunity to return to loyalty to God because they had been blinded by Satan's deceptions. PP 41

On the other hand, because of the test that God gave Adam, and because of the nature of mankind, mankind had fully cast off his allegience to God when he sinned. Not only that, but man's very nature was immediately changed so that forgiveness alone would have done Adam no good. Repentance alone would not have been sufficient to save him. Adam would still have been a rebel and therefore unsafe to save at that point.

But again, Christ's death was not merely in order to show humans God's love. That was part of it but there is much more involved in the sacrifice of Christ.

Consider these important sentences:

"Christ is equal with God, infinite and omnipotent. He could pay the ransom for man's freedom... He could say that which the highest angel could not say,-- I have power over my own life, 'power to lay it down, and .... power to take it again.'" (Youth's Instructor, June 21, 1900).

"The divine Son of God was the only sacrifice of sufficient value to fully satisfy the claims of God's perfect law. The angels were sinless, but of less value than the law of God.... His [Christ's] life was of sufficient value to rescue man from his fallen condition." (SP, vol. 2, page 10.)

"Through Jesus, God's mercy was manifested to men; but mercy does not set aside justice. The law reveals the attributes of God's character, and not a jot or tittle of it could be changed to meet man in his fallen condition. God did not change His law, but He sacrificed Himself, in Christ, for man's redemption." DA 762

John Stott: "In order to save us in such a way as to satisfy himself, God through Christ substituted himself for us. Divine love triumphed over divine wrath by divine self-sacrifice." (The Cross of Christ, page 59)

NOTE: God paid the ransom Himself in Christ to Himself. His own righteous, loving character required it. Without Christ's sacrifice, the whole world would have utterly perished. This is the message of the entire Bible, including John 3: 16. Jesus himself said that His death was "necessary." Luke 24: 46. Why necessary? Because of God's own holy, righteous, loving character.

Ellen White:

"The reconciliation of man to God could be accomplished only through a mediator who was equal with God, possessed of attributes that would dignify, and declare Him worthy to treat with the Infinite God in man's behalf, and also represent God to a fallen world. Man's substitute and surety must have man's nature, a connection with the human family whom He was to represent, and, as God's ambassador, He must partake of the divine nature, have connection with the Infinite, in order to manifest God to the world, and be a mediator between God and man." (RH, Dec. 22, 1891)

[John317]

p:I've asked you repeatedly to open another thread if you wish to discuss this. Please don't bring these things up on the other topics.

N:And I have repeatedly responded that I have neither time nor interest to do this.

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

This doesn't look to be true. You keep writing on the subject, and in this same thread, despite the requests. So your statement rings hollow.

Speaking as the moderator:

If anyone wishes to discuss this further, regarding Ellen White's sources, let them take it to a different thread. Thank you.

[teresaq]

Quote:

True indeed. Once the former murderer is no longer a murderer, there is no need to execute him, nor the need to kill a totally innocent bystander.

So then, what you are saying to is that Christ's death was totally unncessary, and therefore we had/have no need of Him!!!

im doing some catching up so this has probably been answered satisfactorily already...

the former phrase does not make the latter true. we have need of Christs life to be imparted to us, we have need of Christs resurrection or we couldnt be resurrected, i dont believe.

only a perfect life could not stay dead...

[teresaq]

Like the destruction of Jerusalem. There are some similarities, but differences as well. Christ certainly wasn't joyful. I'm sure God won't be joyful when Satan is destroyed. He still loves him. He'll be glad sin will be no more.

yes, God will always mourn the loss of satan as well as the rest of the lost....

there will be relief that there is no more sin, and God will "erase our tears" but how could God be God and not hurt for eternity for the loss of part of His children...?

[pnattmbtc]

There's a difference between determination and foresight. This is where a lot of absolute "free-willers" get confused.

[pnattmbtc]

There are clear answers to these questions regarding the difference between the sins of Adam and the sins of the angels. Until they reached a certain point, Lucifer and his followers "had not at that time fully cast off [their] allegiance to God." PP 39.

Even after Lucifer had gone too far to be forgiven and reinstated, the other angels still had opportunity to return to loyalty to God because they had been blinded by Satan's deceptions. PP 41

On the other hand, because of the test that God gave Adam, and because of the nature of mankind, mankind had fully cast off his allegience to God when he sinned. Not only that, but man's very nature was immediately changed so that forgiveness alone would have done Adam no good. Repentance alone would not have been sufficient to save him. Adam would still have been a rebel and therefore unsafe to save at that point.

[fccool]

Quote:

Yes, that's exactly right. We also know things like this. Peter's decision, in this instance, was set in stone. However, there are other circumstances in which the decision one will make is not so clear.

Peter did not make the decision originally, in fact he claimed that he would make the opposite decision to what God said... in fact something that you argue can perhaps happen. God said... NO YOU WON'T . That's the entire point. God can see beyond the free will, and in this case the Peter's decision to follow his original claim was not set in stone

The examples that you give have nothing to do with God's inconclusiveness on the subject

Quote:

At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.

This has nothing to do with supporting your premise .

If a guard knows that the prisoners are planning to escape and there's nothing to change their mind... and he walks into the cell and says... "if you try to escape I'll shoot you, but if you serve out your sentence I'll let you go"... this verbalization has nothing to do with the fact that the guard knows of the plan and the outcome. He merely verbalizes the consequences of either decision independently of the known outcome. To conclude that because of the conditional verbalization the outcome is inconclusive to God would be in fact a logical fallacy.

Above you are proposing a human-centric version of determinism and you impose it on the nature of God ... I.E. there are instances where God does not know for sure what will happen... that's in essence what you are saying.

Bible contradicts such view.

God asks plenty of questions that He knows the answer to. Aka "Adam, where are you? Did you eat of the fruit of the tree?"...

Likewise you fail to give you explanation as to why you think that absolute foresight is incompatible with free will? Free will has nothing to do with knowing the outcome... it has to do with a independent choice of the agent. You seem to stress that free will is in fact not only bound by the choice of the agent by must lead to some kind of incomprehensable time-split? I don't quite follow... can you elaborate.

To explain it in even more simple terms... today... you will choose to do what you will choose to do. You will not choose any other thing, because you will choose 1 thing to do. You will have ability to choose these things, but you will only choose one or the other. Your choice will be a record in time that in fact will cause a certain sequence of events to unfold. But there will be only one time-line in the end... the one that you eventually do. There will not be a time-line with the things that you don't do . God knows and sees that time-line.

So, now the big problem with the statement below:

Quote:

If God is 100% certain that a given thing will occur, then it's 100% certain that that thing will occur. Call this thing "A". If it's 100% certain that A will occur, then it's 100% certain that ~A will not occur. That means that no person can choose ~A, meaning they cannot have free will (libertarian definition.

Let me point out a problem with this view ... I hope you can see the simple logical error that you are making and there's nothing paradoxical about it.

Just because God sees A it DOES NOT MEAN that person does not have capacity or free will to choose B... it simply means that he will choose A.

Let me help you a bit by looking at it from the historic perspective. When we look back in history, we observe a pattern of choices. These choices are set in stone, but we can rightly say that any given person could have chosen otherwise... BUT THEY DID NOT . Do these people no have free will because they did not make a certain choice in light of other ? God simply looks at the future as we would look at history. IT'S INDEPENDENT OF OUR ABILITY TO CHOOSE . I don't understand what's so logically hard about it?

Sure, God can choose to alter a certain history, but not independent from His ability to see the future... thus as soon as He does the future re-arranges itself according to His will (we hear that quite often from the Bible). Yet, He still knows the outcome. He does not simply guesses and then reacts.

Quote:

If the person has free will, he might not even roll the dice. God would see all the possible things the person might do. If there's only one thing possible for a person to do, then that's what God would see. What God sees corresponds to reality. The real question is what reality is like. What God sees is a red herring. The issue is an ontological one, not an epistemological one.

Once again you are confusing possibility with outcome. These two are connected in terms of outcome being 1 version of multiple possibilities that we will choose... God can see both the possibility and the outcome. It in no way limits our free choice.

The nature of reality is perhaps ambiguous, nevertheless the rules of logic apply because God does not act randomly but based on certain rules.

Lastly, you argue that there are events that are foreknown with certainty and the other are not ... while it's nice to know that you don't hold to all-or nothing in this case... the logical question would be ... why so? What is so different between the "set in stone" decisions and history, and the inconclusive ones?

[pnattmbtc]

John Stott: "In order to save us in such a way as to satisfy himself, God through Christ substituted himself for us. Divine love triumphed over divine wrath by divine self-sacrifice." (The Cross of Christ, page 59)

NOTE: God paid the ransom Himself in Christ to Himself. His own righteous, loving character required it.

This is honest. Often I see the explanation that Christ's sacrifice was to satisfy the law, as if the law were an entity that could be separated from God. But God is the one who created the law, and a law is simply an extension of the mind and will of its creator. So if Christ died to satisfy the law, then He died to satisfy God, which is just what Stott said.

This raises the question, why does a righteous character require payment to satisfy a debt? Also, if we are righteous, it follows that we should make the same requirement to forgive others. Especially since Jesus taught that we should forgive others as we ourselves have been forgiven.

A righteous, loving character requires the payment of a debt in order to forgive the debt. It's rather difficult to follow the logic here.

[fccool]

The eventual confusion comes to automatically associating atonement with penal substitution. In the OT it was not restricted to that context...

Quote:

Numbers 25:1-13 "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. 12Therefore say, 'Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, 13and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel.'"

Psalm 106:30-31 Then Phinehas stood up and intervened, and the plague was stayed. And that was counted to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever.

Quote:

Numbers 31:49-50 "Your servants have counted the men of war who are under our command, and there is not a man missing from us. And we have brought the LORD’s offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD.

Moses and Eleazar the priest accepted from them the gold—all the crafted articles. 52 All the gold from the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds that Moses and Eleazar presented as a gift to the LORD weighed 16,750 shekels. 53 Each soldier had taken plunder for himself. 54 Moses and Eleazar the priest accepted the gold from the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds and brought it into the Tent of Meeting as a memorial for the Israelites before the LORD.

Quote:

Proverbs 16:6 By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for...

It's clear that OT idea of atonement is by means of something of value to God rather than mere spilling of the blood.

[Nic Samojluk]

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

[Nic Samojluk]

Christ's death was a contingent event:

[Nic Samojluk]

It was a totally different situation with Adam and Eve. They were given a test, which, when they failed, changed their allegience immediately and permenantly.

This makes no logical sense to me! Lucifer, who had a full knowledge of God’s character of love was given a chance to repent and keep his position in heaven; yet you argue that Adam and Eve, who had very little experience and knowledge of God’s character of love became altered on a permanent basis the moment they deviated from God's will. I don’t see how your reasoning can be credible!

I believe that what sealed the death of the Son of God was not Adam's sin, but the Jewish leader's rejection of the one sent by God to free them from their sin and from their enemies. At that point, there was nothing more heaven could do for the doomed city of Jerusalem. They had rejected the most powerful manifestations of divine power.

Jesus had amply demonstrated that he was the one sent by God. He had healed the sick and raised the death. There was nothing else he could do for them short of submitting himself to his torturers. When he asked God to forgive those who were killing him and when he rose from the dead, those two actions were the last manifestations to them that hey had killed their rdeemer.

[Nic Samojluk]

A clearer way of stating this is simply to say that it was determined that if man would sin, then God would send Christ as a Savior for man. Christ's mission involved more than simply His dying, which is important to keep in mind.

[pnattmbtc]

We need to remember that God’s promises and threatening are all contingent on human response.

[fccool]

This makes no logical sense to me! Lucifer, who had a full knowledge of God’s character of love was given a chance to repent and keep his position in heaven; yet you argue that Adam and Eve, who had very little experience and knowledge of God’s character of love became altered on a permanent basis the moment they deviated from God's will. I don’t see how your reasoning can be credible!

I believe that what sealed the death of the Son of God was not Adam's sin, but the Jewish leader's rejection of the one sent by God to free them from their sin and from their enemies. At that point, there was nothing more heaven could do for the doomed city of Jerusalem. They had rejected the most powerful manifestations of divine power.

Jesus had amply demonstrated that he was the one sent by God. He had healed the sick and raised the death. There was nothing else he could do for them short of submitting himself to his torturers. When he asked God to forgive those who were killing him and when he rose from the dead, those two actions were the last manifestations to them that hey had killed their rdeemer.

Nick, I suspect that the confusion with the issue does come from with understanding of prophetic foreknowledge. Did Christ know that this will happen before He even created the world? Or did He merely reacted based on the actions of the people and angels?

What does the prophecy of "seed of the woman crushing your head, and you bruising his hill".

When Christ prophesied and foreseen the destruction of Jerusalem, this event was in fact one of the consequences of Jews rejecting Him. So, in effect He understood and He knew the layout of history at that moment.

So, from that perspective, the writers of the NT do picture the death of Christ as a certain and necessary event.

It does not mean however that it was necessary in terms of penal substitution as you have pointed out. Had in fact the opposite happen, which I do agree with you on that very good point, the circumstances would be different... and Christ would indeed rule Israel.

BUT, due to the nature of foreknowledge and historic intervention... Christ knew that this will not be the case, and that's why he clarified many times to the disciples that this will not happen. That people will indeed reject Him and kill Him. And that He will continue to be the king of a different kingdom... consisting of the people who accept His sacrifice.

Therefore, it creates this teleological confusion as to why Christ came in the first place. Did He come to live, or did He come to die?

[pnattmbtc]

That people will indeed reject Him and kill Him.

These people didn't have to be the Jews.

[pnattmbtc]

Therefore, it creates this teleological confusion as to why Christ came in the first place. Did He come to live, or did He come to die?

[fccool]

These people didn't have to be the Jews.

No, of course not . People did not have to reject Him in the first place... just like people did not have to sin. But, the string of events made it necessary as foreseen by God... , hence the prophecy given to serpent.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

No, of course not . People did not have to reject Him in the first place... just like people did not have to sin. But, the string of events made it necessary as foreseen by God... , hence the prophecy given to serpent.

Human nature being what it is, it's obvious what would happen should God appear in the flesh. Nic's point, as I have understood it, is that it was necessary that the Jews reject Christ. I was pointing out that Christ still could have been killed in this case.

I'm not sure what Nic's take is on this.

[fccool]

Ellen White subscribed to the penal substitution view as well as moral influence view:

AG.1903-08-19.003 Atlantic Union Gleaner 1903

Our Only Hope. God's law has lost none of its force. In his sight sin is still a hateful thing. Because we have sinned, we must personally bear the condemnation of the law, unless some one else, one in whom no taint of sin can be found, will bear the condemnation in our behalf. Without a substitute, we have no hope of pardon and salvation.

PT.1886-02-04.001 Present Truth (British) 1886

It was not the dread of death which caused the inexpressible agony of Jesus…. It was the guilt of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon him as man's substitute, that broke the heart of the Son of God.

RH.1887-07-05.008

It was not enough that Jesus should die in order to fully meet the demands of the broken law, but he died a shameful death. The prophet gives to the world his words, "I hid not my face from shame and spitting."

RH.1912-11-28.003

The divine Author of salvation left nothing incomplete in the plan; every phase of it is perfect. The sin of the whole world was laid upon Jesus, and divinity gave its highest value to the suffering of humanity in Jesus, that the whole world might be pardoned through faith in the Substitute.

RH.1912-11-28.003

The divine Author of salvation left nothing incomplete in the plan; every phase of it is perfect. The sin of the whole world was laid upon Jesus, and divinity gave its highest value to the suffering of humanity in Jesus, that the whole world might be pardoned through faith in the Substitute.

ST.1915-01-05.013

Through the guilty from moral defilement, and impart to them His own righteousness. He died to make an atonement, to redeem, cleanse, restore, and exalt man to a place at His right hand.death of Christ a door of hope was opened for fallen man. Man was under sentence of death for the transgression of the law of God. He was under condemnation as a traitor, as a rebel; but Christ came to be his substitute, to die as a malefactor, to suffer the penalty of the traitors, bearing the weight of their sins upon His divine soul. He descended lower and lower, till there were no lower depths of humiliation to sound, in order that He might lift up those who would believe in Him...

Any thoughts?

[pnattmbtc]

I'll just comment on a couple of these.

Quote:

It was not the dread of death which caused the inexpressible agony of Jesus…. It was the guilt of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon him as man's substitute, that broke the heart of the Son of God.

This is similar to the following well known statement:

Quote:

Satan with his fierce temptations wrung the heart of Jesus. The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to God that Their separation was to be eternal. Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race. It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon Him as man's substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God.

So what caused Jesus' death here? It says that Christ "felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race." Is this an arbitrary (imposed) punishment? Or is it a natural consequence? It sounds to me like a natural consequence. Given it's a natural consequence, the penal substitution idea doesn't make sense. Where would be the connection be between Christ's feeling anguish because of guilt and the wicked feeling it?

The wicked feel guilt because they are guilty. It's not something imposed upon them. There's no reason why Christ's feeling this anguish should cause a guilty person not to be guilty from the penal substitution standpoint. The law does not demand that people feel guilty, or feel anguish.

Quote:

It was not enough that Jesus should die in order to fully meet the demands of the broken law, but he died a shameful death. The prophet gives to the world his words, "I hid not my face from shame and spitting."

The law does not demand that one die a shameful death which involves feeling shame and being spit upon. Surely these are natural consequences; not imposed ones.

[pnattmbtc]

Also, I'll add that, considering the SOP, that God offered Lucifer pardon for his sins, which were terrible (for worse than anything Adam and Eve did), shows that God does not need blood to be enabled to forgive.

[Guest]

Also, I'll add that, considering the SOP, that God offered Lucifer pardon for his sins, which were terrible (for worse than anything Adam and Eve did), shows that God does not need blood to be enabled to forgive.

I'm not so sure I can go along with that. He offered to let things continue as they were, up to a point. But after that point was reached there was no longer any way God could do that.

Up to a certain point Lucifer had not broken the law of God yet. Think about this. If the broken law could have just been set aside for a little while in the Garden of Eden, then Jesus would not have had to die.

Remember in the garden of Gethsemane when Jesus prayed to His father, and basically said: Look if there is some other way we can do this, then lets do it that way. But there was no other way. He had to either pay the penalty for you, or you would have to pay it yourself, and die the second death. Eternal death.

The Cross proves that the Ten Commandment law cannot be changed or set aside. Because if it could have been, it would have been. He had to die for our sins.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death;

That is why Jesus died. Not for just a show.