Redemption in Spite of the Cross: My View About the Cross and God’s Fo

[Nic Samojluk]

Hi Nic,

Maybe this word from the Son of God may help in the discussion?

John 10:17-18

“Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”

Read my answer to John above! Jesus did not perform a miracle to save himself from a cruel death. Nevertheless, this was not God's preferred outcome. God wanted Jerusalem to reemain forever. Jesus was destined to sit on the throne of David his Jewish ancestor. He came to save his chosen nation from their sins and from the Roman domination.

It appears that no creature “killed” the Son of God in payment for a debt owed to the “the law”. From this text we can learn that He killed Himself! That is, He as God killed “the Son of man”.

I disagree. Jesus did not commit suicide! He was killed by those who had chosen to follow the deception of the one who has been "a murderer from the beginmning."

[Gerr]

Quote:

One of the most enigmatic questions connected with the Christian faith is: Why did Jesus die? The most common answer is: He offered his life that we might have forgiveness for our sins. He paid the penalty for our sin and rebellion. This answer contains a precious kernel of truth, but it does not tell the entire story of redemption, and it threatens to blame God for the death of Jesus. Why not consider that we have access to forgiveness and redemption in spite of the cross?

If there is forgiveness apart from the Cross, then God lied when He said, "...for in the day that you eat of it (the fruit) you shall surely die." Gen 2:17.

And He lied when He said,

ESV | ‎Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

And the statement, "...and it threatens to blame God for the death of Jesus" is false. No sin, no death. It wasn't God who sinned. However, you are correct in saying that it doesn't tell the entire story of redemption. That is why the Story of Redemption is a theme worth studying throughout eternity.

[phkrause]

Quote:

One of the most enigmatic questions connected with the Christian faith is: Why did Jesus die? The most common answer is: He offered his life that we might have forgiveness for our sins. He paid the penalty for our sin and rebellion. This answer contains a precious kernel of truth, but it does not tell the entire story of redemption, and it threatens to blame God for the death of Jesus. Why not consider that we have access to forgiveness and redemption in spite of the cross?

If there is forgiveness apart from the Cross, then God lied when He said, "...for in the day that you eat of it (the fruit) you shall surely die." Gen 2:17.

And He lied when He said,

ESV | ‎Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

And the statement, "...and it threatens to blame God for the death of Jesus" is false. No sin, no death. It wasn't God who sinned. However, you are correct in saying that it doesn't tell the entire story of redemption. That is why the Story of Redemption is a theme worth studying throughout eternity.

excellent post Gerry

[Nic Samojluk]

Gerry Cabalo wrote:

“If there is forgiveness apart from the Cross, then God lied when He said, "...for in the day that you eat of it (the fruit) you shall surely die." Gen 2:17.”

No, he didn’t lie! Is Adam alive or dead? Was God’s prediction fulfilled or not?

“And He lied when He said,

ESV | ‎Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”

Which law? Human or divine? Isn’t this a reference to the “eye for an eye” law which was abrogated when Jesus said: “But I say, love your enemies”?

[Gerr]

Gerry Cabalo wrote:

“If there is forgiveness apart from the Cross, then God lied when He said, "...for in the day that you eat of it (the fruit) you shall surely die." Gen 2:17.”

No, he didn’t lie! Is Adam alive or dead? Was God’s prediction fulfilled or not?

Perhaps this will clarify what God said in Eden.

ESV | ‎Eze 18:4 ... the soul who sins shall die.

ESV | ‎Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Are these texts talking about the first death only?

Quote:

“And He lied when He said,

ESV | ‎Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”

Which law? Human or divine? Isn’t this a reference to the “eye for an eye” law which was abrogated when Jesus said: “But I say, love your enemies”?

Please rease the context of Heb 9:22 and see if it has ANYTHING to do with lex talionis, or whether it's referring to divine or human law.

[Gerr]

The last line should have said: "Please read the context....."

I don't know why less than 30 sec after posting something, can't edit it anymore.

[Woody]

Quote:

I don't know why less than 30 sec after posting something, can't edit it anymore.

[BobRyan]

One of the most enigmatic questions connected with the Christian faith is: Why did Jesus die? The most common answer is: He offered his life that we might have forgiveness for our sins. He paid the penalty for our sin and rebellion. This answer contains a precious kernel of truth, but it does not tell the entire story of redemption, and it threatens to blame God for the death of Jesus. Why not consider that we have access to forgiveness and redemption in spite of the cross?

For two reasons -

1. That is not a quote from the Bible - it is a quote from Nic.

2. The Bible actually says otherwise.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Which brings us once again to this -

Isaiah 53 says that Christ took the torment suffering "for US to whom the stripes were due"

1John 2:2 says "He is the atoning sacrifice for OUR SINS and not for our SINS only but for the SINS of the whole world"

And Peter affirms this same point that we are redeemed by with "precious blood as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ" 1Peter 1:18-19

And Paul says that "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" 2Cor 5.

1 Corinthians 15:3

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures

Galatians 1:4

who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father

1 Peter 2:24

who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.

1 Peter 3:18

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

1 John 2:2

And He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

1 John 4:10

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Quote:

I don't know why less than 30 sec after posting something, can't edit it anymore.

I too have noticed that -

Bob

[RonP]

Hi Nic (and all),

You wrote,

I disagree. Jesus did not commit suicide! He was killed by those who had chosen to follow the deception of the one who has been "a murderer from the beginning."

When Jesus tried to explain to His disciples what was going to happen at Calvary, one of them violently tried to oppose Him. It is written;

“From that time forth began Jesus [over and over again] to show to His disciples, how that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took Him [physically], and began to rebuke Him, saying, ‘Be it far from You, LORD: this shall not be to You’. But He turned, and said to Peter, ‘Get you behind Me, Satan: you are an offence to Me: for you savour not the things that be of God, but those that be of men [you are letting your own opinion override the desire of God]’.” Matthew 6:21-23.

In another place, Jesus stated plainly that He was NOT killed by any creature, but that He CHOSE to give up His mortal life.

John 10:17-18.

“Therefore does My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again. No man takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment [permission] have I received of My Father.”

It was not suicide for Him any more than it was for the martyrs who died for Him under persecution. They died at the hands of men, but He is so much greater than them in that He is both God and man. It was His earthly life that was terminated by Him on the cross (right on time at 3PM), and it was His divine life which resurrected Him on the third day.

Mark 15:37.

“And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and GAVE UP the [Holy] Ghost”.

Luke 23:46.

“And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, He said, ‘Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit’: and having said thus, He gave up the [Holy] Ghost”.

John 19:30.

“When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, ‘It is finished’: and He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost”.

Please do not follow in Peter’s footsteps!

[Gerr]

While it is true that Jesus could not have died unless He was willing to lay down His life, but would He have died without the Jews and the Romans?

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

"He as God killed “the Son of man”."

Jesus laid down His life and the destroyer, satan by name, took it. The Father is not the destroyer. To suggest that He is, is tantamount to blasphemy. Or at the very least, incredible ignorance of the character of God, even if the ignorance is a result of bonafide misconception.

"The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love."1 John 4:8 NASB

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."Hebrews 13:8 NKJV

"I and My Father are one.”"

"If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is. From now on, you do know him and have seen him!”

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.”

Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?"John 10:30 NKJV

God blesses!

[Nic Samojluk]

Perhaps this will clarify what God said in Eden.

Eze 18:4 ... the soul who sins shall die.

[Nic Samojluk]

I don't know why less than 30 sec after posting something, can't edit it anymore.

Good question! I was wondering about this.

[Nic Samojluk]

Which brings us once again to this -

Isaiah 53 says that Christ took the torment suffering "for US to whom the stripes were due"

1John 2:2 says "He is the atoning sacrifice for OUR SINS and not for our SINS only but for the SINS of the whole world"

And Peter affirms this same point that we are redeemed by with "precious blood as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ" 1Peter 1:18-19

And Paul says that "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" 2Cor 5.

1 Corinthians 15:3

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures

Galatians 1:4

who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father

1 Peter 2:24

who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.

1 Peter 3:18

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

1 John 2:2

And He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

1 John 4:10

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.

in Christ,

Bob

I want you to notice that all the texts you cited, with the exception of Isaiah 53, represent after the fact explanation for the death of Jesus.

When you do that, you completely ignore the basic premise I have presented at the beginning of this blog: That we find in the Bible two potential outcomes for the future of Israel of old and its Messiah, but they were contingent on their acceptance of Jesus as their Savior.

To Mary, the mother of Jesus, the promise was that he would sit on David's throne forever. This was possible only in the event the Jewish leaders accepted Jesus as the promissed Messiah and rightful king.

The Isaiah 53 text represents the alternative outcome in case the Jews decided to reject Jesus. Ellen White told us that God's promises and threatenings are conditional. They are contingent on human response.

Johnah's prediction was conditional as well when we look at the outcome. The same can be said about the priestly house of Eli. God promised that it would last forever, but when he failed to discipline his children, the Lord failed to honor his promise.

The majority of the texts you cited are after the fact explanations. When Joseph of old told his brothers in Egypt not to worry about their sin of selling him as a slave, he argued that their sin was used by God to bless them.

We should not conclude that God was pleased with the cruelty they had shown toward Joseph. The Lord can use our mistakes for our own good when we repent of our sin. This principle applies to what happened to Jesus.

His death became a blessing, but God did all in his power to lead the Jewish leaders to accept Jesus as their Saviour and even sent an angel to Pilate's wife to warn him not to kill an innocent man.

[Nic Samojluk]

When Jesus tried to explain to His disciples what was going to happen at Calvary, one of them violently tried to oppose Him. It is written;

“From that time forth began Jesus [over and over again] to show to His disciples, how that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took Him [physically], and began to rebuke Him, saying, ‘Be it far from You, LORD: this shall not be to You’. But He turned, and said to Peter, ‘Get you behind Me, Satan: you are an offence to Me: for you savour not the things that be of God, but those that be of men [you are letting your own opinion override the desire of God]’.” Matthew 6:21-23.

Notice the "From that time forth" phrase. This is very significative. Why didn't Jesus say this prior to that time? Very simple: The Jewish leaders had not decided yet what to do with Jesus.

When Jesus began to make this kind of explanations, it was because by that time he knew quite well that the Jews had passed the point of no return.

Their decision to get rid of Jesus was set in cement; the only thing not known to them yet was how to accoplish this murderous act.

[BobRyan]

I want you to notice that all the texts you cited, with the exception of Isaiah 53, represent after the fact explanation for the death of Jesus.

When you do that, you completely ignore the basic premise I have presented at the beginning of this blog: That we find in the Bible two potential outcomes for the future of Israel of old and its Messiah, but they were contingent on their acceptance of Jesus as their Savior.

To Mary, the mother of Jesus, the promise was that he would sit on David's throne forever. This was possible only in the event the Jewish leaders accepted Jesus as the promissed Messiah and rightful king.

The Isaiah 53 text represents the alternative outcome in case the Jews decided to reject Jesus. Ellen White told us that God's promises and threatenings are conditional. They are contingent on human response.

[BobRyan]

Jesus sweat great drops of blood -- without help from anyone else.

Although this medical condition is relatively rare, according to Dr. Frederick Zugibe (Chief Medical Examiner of Rockland County, New York) it is well-known, and there have been many cases of it. The clinical term is “hematohidrosis.” “Around the sweat glands, there are multiple blood vessels in a net-like form.” Under the pressure of great stress the vessels constrict. Then as the anxiety passes “the blood vessels dilate to the point of rupture. The blood goes into the sweat glands.” As the sweat glands are producing a lot of sweat, it pushes the blood to the surface - coming out as droplets of blood mixed with sweat.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God - slain from the foundations of the World. God's plan to restore mankind and preserve His Law was been from eternity past.

I recall someone saying that it was not the nails that held Jesus to the cross. Rather it was His love. As also He did not die from the physical abuse He suffered but from a broken heart.

Both statements I believe to be true.

There is no place in the Word indicating our names are put into the Lamb's book of life. Only that they can be removed, indicating all have their name there from the beginning. All we need to keep it from being removed is to accept God's plan of salvation as a gift.

If someone knows from the Word contrary to the placement of the names of each of us in the Lamb's book of life from the beginning, I'd appreciate it for the sake of the Truth.

God blesses!

[Alchemy]

One of the most enigmatic questions connected with the Christian faith is: Why did Jesus die? The most common answer is: He offered his life that we might have forgiveness for our sins. He paid the penalty for our sin and rebellion. This answer contains a precious kernel of truth, but it does not tell the entire story of redemption, and it threatens to blame God for the death of Jesus. Why not consider that we have access to forgiveness and redemption in spite of the cross?

Some Problems with the Christian View of the Atonement

Did God plan the crucifixion of Jesus Christ? Was this a requirement for the forgiveness he wanted to offer to sinners? Is it true that God could not forgive our sins unless someone paid the price for our redemption? Did God say: “I want to forgive, but I cannot unless the price is paid. This is what I will do: I will send my Son, and if humans agree to kill him, then the price of the penitent sinner will have been paid, and I will be free to offer forgiveness to him!”

If this is true, then it logically follows that it was God who masterminded the death of his Son, and the blame for the death of Jesus is partially shifted from humans and the Devil to God. God becomes an accomplice to the greatest injustice ever committed in human history, and the Devil deserves some credit for the forgiveness offered to sinners.

The True Meaning of Forgiveness

Is there an alternative explanation for the death of Jesus? I believe there is, but before I try to explain my view of this controversial issue, let me comment on the true nature of forgiveness. My dictionary defines forgiveness as the forfeiture for the payment of a debt. If this definition of forgiveness is correct, this means that forgiveness is granted without the payment of the moral debt.

Let me illustrate this as follows. Suppose I am guilty of a moving violation and a friend of mine volunteers to pay the court imposed monetary fine. Would it make sense for the judge to say to me: “I have decided to forgive you for your infraction because your friend has already paid the fine”? How can God grant forgiveness and then demand the payment of the penalty? Doesn’t the payment of the penalty destroy the true meaning of forgiveness? Doesn’t genuine forgiveness make the payment of the debt unnecessary and superfluous?

Contrast Between Civil and Criminal Law

This suggests that the legal theory of atonement makes no logical sense; but there is more, it also violates our understanding of criminal law. If I am guilty of a civil offense, the law allows for anybody to pay the fine for my infraction; but if I am guilty of murder, no one is allowed to pay for my crime. I am the only one who must suffer the consequence of my action.

The Problem with Prophetic Predictions

How can we get out of this dilemma? Can God offer true forgiveness without the payment of the penalty? Could God offer forgiveness without the death of Jesus Christ? Would there have been hope for the human race in the event the Jews had refused to kill their Messiah? Was not the death of Jesus predicted in Scripture?

The answer to this question is “Yes,” the suffering and death of the Jewish Messiah was predicted, but it was also predicted that he would sit on King David’s throne and that God’s chosen nation would enjoy an incredible prosperity and a glorious future under the rule of the Jewish rightful Messiah and King. How can we interpret these apparently contradictory predictions about the future of the Jewish Messiah and the destiny of the Jewish nation?

Contingent Prophetical Predictions

The answer lies in the nature of predictive prophesy. We see this illustrated in the classic case found in the book of Jonah the prophet. God predicted the total destruction of the sinful city of Nineveh, but the prediction failed because the people repented of their sin. This means that God’s warnings and promises are contingent on human response.

Another example is found in the promise God made to the house of priest Eli, who failed in disciplining his sons in the performance of the sacred work connected with the Sanctuary and God’s promise to him and his posterity was voided by the Lord:

New International Version (©1984)

Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: 'I promised that your house and your father's house would minister before me forever.' But now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained. [1 Sam.2:30]

The principle implied in this story is that what the Lord promises is subject to the fidelity of those the Lord is planning to bless. The prediction is not set in concrete, but rather contingent on human behavior. God’s promises and threatening are dependent on the future behavior of his children and his prophetic predictions are conditional and subject to change in response to human conduct.

This basic truth is also seen in the promises made to the children of Israel when they were ready to enter into the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua. Their future would be subject to their behavior, and their checkered history attests to the truthfulness of this fact.

New International Version (©1984)

Afterward, Joshua read all the words of the law--the blessings and the curses--just as it is written in the Book of the Law. [Jos. 8:34]

Applying the Contingency Principle to the Life of Jesus Christ

Can we apply this basic principle of correct biblical interpretation to the life and death of Jesus Christ and to the predictions made about the future of the Jewish Messiah and King? I believe we can, and we should. On one hand we find in the Old Testament promises of a glorious future for God’s chosen nation under the leadership of the promised Messiah; on the other hand we have the prediction of his suffering and death.

Likewise we find apparently contradictory predictions about the future of the baby which would be born to Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus. Here is one of them taken from the first chapter of Luke:

New International Version 1984

________________________________________

30But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.

Jesus was destined to be crowned as King of the Jewish nation and sit on David’s throne. But notice that in chapter 2 of the same book a totally different outcome was predicted for Jesus Christ:

New International Version 1984

________________________________________

34Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.

The Choice Between Two Alternative Futures

In one case the Jewish Messiah was expected to be crowned as the King of the Jews, but in the other one a sword would pierce the heart of Mary. How could this be? How can we explain such diverse fulfillment of what was promised? Here is my answer: Both predictions were contingent on the human response of those who had been chosen by God to be his representatives on earth. The Jewish leaders were free to choose one of the two alternatives.

Had they chosen to welcome Jesus as the promised Messiah, Jesus would have been crowned as their King, and, according the Ellen White, Jerusalem would have eventually become the capital of the entire world. And let’s not forget that when the people welcomed Jesus on the occasion of his triumphal entry to Jerusalem, Jesus apparently was ready to act as their King. His first act as their King was to cleanse the Jewish Temple.

The Jewish Leaders’ Choice

What was the Jewish rulers’ reaction to Jesus claim to his father David’s throne? They demanded his death and with this action they sealed their nation’s destiny. The Romans eventually came and destroyed the city and the Temple they had in such high esteem.

This explains Jesus enigmatic behavior following his triumphal entry into the city of Jerusalem. Instead of rejoicing with the people who were shouting Hossanahs, he wept over the sacred city with a sad lament:

New International Version 1984

________________________________________41As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.

Thus the glorious future promised to Israel under the rulership of their Messiah did not materialize and the city of Jerusalem was destroyed a few decades later. The sacred Temple was razed to the ground, and it is estimated that one million people perished as a result of the wrong choice made by the Jewish leaders.

Who Masterminded the Crucifixion of Jesus?

What can we say about the reason for the death of Jesus? Was this masterminded by God in his attempt to find a legal way to be able to offer forgiveness to repentant sinners, or was this the outcome of the free choice made by the leaders of the Jewish nation who were under the malefic power of the Devil, that Old Serpent, who was a deceiver and a murderer from the beginning?

We Christians usually show a preference to the legal view of the atonement. We teach that God could not offer true and genuine forgiveness without the payment of the penalty for their guilt forgetting that true forgiveness cancels such payment. If God needed the death of the most innocent being in the universe to enable him to forgive repentant sinners, then why all the effort made by God and Jesus to convince the Jewish leaders that he was the true Messiah?

Think about all the miracles he performed with this objective in mind. He healed the sick, he fed multitudes with a few loaves of bread, he walked on water, he raised the death, and he came from the tomb followed his death. On top of this, God sent an angel to Pilate’s wife warning him not to condemn an innocent man to his death. This is evidence, I believe that the one responsible for the plan to have Jesus killed was not God, but rather his archenemy. It is high time that we stop blaming God for the suffering and death of God’ Son.

What About the Texts Connecting Jesus’ Blood to Forgiveness?

New International Version (©1984)

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. [Matt. 26:28]

New International Version (©1984)

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace. [Eph. 1:7]

The Blood of Jesus a Symbol for his Words

Following the feeding of the multitude, Jesus made a spiritual declaration to those who followed after him motivated by the expectation of material blessings which his listeners misinterpreted.

New International Version (©1984)

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. [John 6:53]

The people were not interested in spiritual blessing, for which reason they interpreted Jesus’ statements in a literal manner. Then Jesus explained to them the spiritual meaning of the blood symbol:

New International Version (©1984)

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. [John 6:63]

The power to cleanse the soul from sin did not reside in the blood of Jesus, but rather in his words, the same words which brought the world into existence. The words which created the first Adam, could recreate the human soul in his own image one more time. The blood was a mere symbol of said powerful words Jesus had spoken to them. This is the reason Jesus could say before his death:

New International Version (©1984)

You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. [John 15:3]

This is a clear evidence that the power to cleanse the human soul moral pollution does not reside in the physical drops of blood Jesus shed on Calvary, but rather in the creative power of the one who brought our world into existence. And this is also the reason that Jesus could say to the paralytic before his crucifixion: “Your sins are forgiven.”

The Parable of the Vineyard

I believe that we can learn from the parable of the vineyard. The owner of a vineyard had rented it to tenants and when it was harvest time he sent his servants to collect the rent. They were mistreated, so the man decided to send his own son thinking that those evil men would show some respect to him. The tenants instead decided to kill him with the hope of remaining in possession of the vineyard.

The lesson I want to draw from this parable is: The owner of the vineyard did not say: I am sending my son with the hope that those evil men will kill him but rather with the expectation that his tenants would show respect to him. This illustrates to me that God was not hoping that the Jewish leaders would kill Jesus, but rather that they would treat him out of respect towards God.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son

We can draw a similar lesson from the parable of the prodigal son. When the repentant son came back home, the father did not say to him: “Wait a minute! In order for me to forgive you for your offense, we need to take care of some legal matters. We will need to punish your little brother for your sin and then I’ll be legally able to forgive you and take you back as my son.”

If suffering was the price for sin, then the father had already suffered more than enough during his son’s absence. Love causes pain and anguish when a son rebels and leaves the security of his home. Pain and suffering is the natural result of love when there is a rupture in the loving relationship between a father and his children.

Ellen White’s View of the Atonement

Someone stated that we can find in the writings of Ellen White all the theories of atonement ever advanced by theologians. Here is one of them which resonated with what I am suggesting in this paper:

Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God. Every departure from the right, every deed of cruelty, every failure of humanity to reach His ideal, brings grief to Him. When there came upon Israel the calamities that were the sure result of separation from God,--subjugation by their enemies, cruelty, and death, --it is said that "His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel." "In all their affliction He was afflicted: . . . and He bare them, and carried them all the days of old. Judges 10:16; Isaiah 63:9. {Ed 263.1}

I conclude from this that if we were to add all the pain God was subjected to as a result of the accumulated evil in the world since the fall of Adam and Eve, then if suffering is the result of God’s love towards his children, God must have suffered more than enough since the inception of sin and rebellion, and there was no legal requirement to add to this the physical suffering of God’s Son in order to pay the penalty for sin and offer forgiveness to sinners.

If the Law demanded payment of the debt in terms of suffering, then the cross represented an overpayment for the guilt of sin, since by the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem, God had suffered more than enough as a result of rebellion and pain experienced by those he created for his glory.

Blessings Nic,

Are you one of the "old" Creation Seventh-day Adventist people?

You obviously missed something with this understanding of the Plan of Salvation.

For instance; Satan doesn't get off the hook partially because the Father has to share the blame! Satan gets more of the blame because God can pass the sins of the saved onto him! This Sanctuary service in Heaven couldn't happen without a sacrifice. In the end Satan suffers a lot more because of the sins of the redeemed.

The Father is not guilty!! Not even partially!!

Read Luke 12:32, the Father longs to forgive us and give us His Kingdom. But, God had to deal with the sin problem once and for all.

I hope this helps at least a little.

[Nic Samojluk]

You are missing the key detail that not one of these texts say "because the Jews did not accept Christ - - Christ had to come and die for "our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole WORLD" -- no not one of them.

[BobRyan]

We Christians usually show a preference to the legal view of the atonement. We teach that God could not offer true and genuine forgiveness without the payment of the penalty for their guilt

[Nic Samojluk]

Indeed - the payment that is owed according to God's Law is the suffering, torment and death of the lake of Fire.

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ’s agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God. [Education page 63]

Ellen White never refers to that as "all heaven paying the debt of our sins".

A child suffers when they fall on a bike. But they are not paying the debt for mankind's sin.

The only substitutionary atoning sacrifice is the one paid at Calvary - for by "ONE sacrifice" Christ completed the payment due according to His own law.

If God needed the death of the most innocent being in the universe to enable him to forgive repentant sinners, then why all the effort made by God and Jesus to convince the Jewish leaders that he was the true Messiah?

And you answered:

Quote:

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Because "the wages of sin is NOT torment by Jews". Think about it.

I did think about it, and your anwer makes no sense to me! Actually, I think that you did not even try to answer my question. Can you rephrase your ansewer so that it becomes understandable for me?

Nothing that the Jews or Romans 2 was the "wages of sin" that you find in Romans 6 or "the Lake of fire" that you see in Rev 20.

Their actions merely increased the debt of sin owed - they did not pay for it by tormenting Christ.

The payment for sin was in the form of the supernatural suffering of Christ. Peter did not "sorta pay" for his own debt of sin by dying on the cross. All such suffering and death - is not the debt of sin owed - the 2nd death with its own unique form of suffering and death.

There will be no Roman soldiers tormenting people in the Rev 20 lake of fire so as to have their debt of sin paid.

There will be no mocking Jews in the Lake of fire - mocking those in the fire so that they may finally pay their debt of sin. That is not the payment that is "owed".

in Christ,

Bob