Forgiveness of sin

[pnattmbtc]

Hi Wingnut.  I've enjoyed your participation.

It's good to be made to think about things one has just been taking for granted.  I'm thinking particularly of the fall.

Christian thought, for centuries, has been that there was a fall in the garden of Eden, which involves many things, including nature (e.g. Romans speaking of creation groaning), but, in particular, human nature.  The idea has been that Adam, when he sinned, developed a sinful nature, and that nature was passed to his descendents.  I'm understanding that you don't believe this is the case.

So if there was no fall, then our natures must be as they were when God created us, which is an interesting point of view.  But before going there, I have a question of clarification.  As things are now, we all grow old and die.  Do you we were created this way?  That is, had Adam and Eve not sinned, would they have grown old and died?  I suppose one could take the view that they would have died except for the fruit of the true of life keeping them alive.

Regarding "self-love", it seems evident to me that you and Robert are not on the same page as to what that means.  It appears to me that you're talking about something akin to self respect, whereas Robert is talking about putting yourself first, ahead of others, and ahead of God.

[Wingnut]

What you are presenting is a do-it-yourself righteousness.  Another word for " do-it-yourself righteousness" is self-righteousness.  In other words all you need to do is chose to do right, and wallah, you're righteous.  

Where's the righteousness of Christ in your rhetoric?  Where's "with out Me (Christ) you can do nothing (nothing good)"? 

There are times where I am 100% behind "spookiness" or the supernatural and your last sentence I 100% agree with.  The only righteousness acceptable to God is the righteousness of Abraham.  Abraham believed God, and it was IMPUTED to him for righteousness.  To take it further, all have sinned, and only the blood of Christ is effective at covering our sins.  And when our sins are covered, Christ, as High priest, pleads our case with the Father against our accuser, Satan.

Now when someone accuses me of unrighteousness, or points out my flaws and deficiencies in law keeping or calls me narcissistic or trying to use self-will to gain self-righteousness, I plead "Guilty of all of the above and much, much more".  Then I add "So what is your point - the only goodness anyone has is imputed righteousness, through Christ.  Accuse me all you like, Christ can cover all that and impute to me righteousness, because (like Abraham) I believe God, and He alone imputes righteousness".

Imputed righteousness is "spooky" or supernatural.  I am happy to talk all day about the marvellousness of grace and imputed righteousness.

I will however strongly reject the spookiness behind the concept of "fallen man" as if something was added or subtracted from man at the non-fall.

Even the unfallen, sinless Adam and Eve could not have lived forever.  They needed to eat of the Tree of Life, a symbol of Christ.  And they did eat of the Tree of Life while in the garden.  If this tree was there with this wonderful name in the middle of the garden, and God had told them that of EVERY tree they may freely eat - obviously they ate of that tree - almost like a pre communion, communion.  But like communion, we have to do it continually, and once cut off from The Tree (and Christ, the LORD who walked with them in the garden), they were doomed to "surely die".

 

[pnattmbtc]

There are times where I am 100% behind "spookiness" or the supernatural and your last sentence I 100% agree with.  The only righteousness acceptable to God is the righteousness of Abraham.  Abraham believed God, and it was IMPUTED to him for righteousness.  To take it further, all have sinned, and only the blood of Christ is effective at covering our sins.  And when our sins are covered, Christ, as High priest, pleads our case with the Father against our accuser, Satan.

Now when someone accuses me of unrighteousness, or points out my flaws and deficiencies in law keeping or calls me narcissistic or trying to use self-will to gain self-righteousness, I plead "Guilty of all of the above and much, much more".  Then I add "So what is your point - the only goodness anyone has is imputed righteousness, through Christ.  Accuse me all you like, Christ can cover all that and impute to me righteousness, because (like Abraham) I believe God, and He alone imputes righteousness".

Imputed righteousness is "spooky" or supernatural.  I am happy to talk all day about the marvellousness of grace and imputed righteousness.

I will however strongly reject the spookiness behind the concept of "fallen man" as if something was added or subtracted from man at the non-fall.

Even the unfallen, sinless Adam and Eve could not have lived forever.  They needed to eat of the Tree of Life, a symbol of Christ.  And they did eat of the Tree of Life while in the garden.  If this tree was there with this wonderful name in the middle of the garden, and God had told them that of EVERY tree they may freely eat - obviously they ate of that tree - almost like a pre communion, communion.  But like communion, we have to do it continually, and once cut off from The Tree (and Christ, the LORD who walked with them in the garden), they were doomed to "surely die".

 

I think you have this backwards.  The imputed righteousness (as presented here) is voodoo, but the fall is real.

[Wingnut]

I think you have this backwards.  The imputed righteousness (as presented here) is voodoo, but the fall is real.

Thank you for you kind comments in your previous post.

I believe in supernatural imputed righteousness, whereby God, supernaturally overlooks our filthiness and sees us as "good".

I reject the concept of imputed badness which supposedly happened at "the fall" whereby something supposedly happened to make us worse.

I feel this is totally unnecessary that we need to be made worse.  David said that "man at his best state is altogether vanity" Ps 39:5.

[Wingnut]

"Agape...is not self-seeking" 1 Cor 13:5 NIV

If any doubt remains to what this means, Paul clears it up in 1 Cor 10:24

"Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth."

Let no man seek what?  His own wealth.  Instead seek to make your neighbor prosperous. Anything outside this is self-seeking and hence sin in the eyes of God's law.  

Remember that "the whole law", states Paul, is "love your neighbor as you love yourself".  Very clear!

Robert, I could go through all of 1 Cor 13 which defines "love" or agape and I could show you how some primitive tribes "suffer long and are kind..."etc. and thus prove to you that they have agape as defined by this last word on love.  I could even tell you that I even occasionally "vaunt not myself, am not puffed up..sometimes don't seek my own... sometimes think no evil".  I could try to justify myself by pointing to my law keeping or sprinkle a little bit of Sabbath dust into the mix etc.  No action on my part is good enough.  Only God can supernaturally impute righteousness. 

[Wingnut]

Saved from what?

Your answer must be, "the curse of the law"

Christ came to save sinners, who are slaves to their self-love, from under His own law that condemns them.  Sinners can do nothing but sin.  They can't produce any righteousness, only pretend righteousness, which is self-righteousness (filthy garments).

To accept Christ you have to realize that you are 100% sinner, that is, there's nothing you do that is genuinely good.  When you see your true condition you are prepared to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ.

Secondly, after you receive Christ by faith, you must rest in His finished work of redemption.  This means that  you cannot add your works of the law to what Christ did 2000 years ago. If you are resting in His finished work, then, and only then, will the Spirit of God give you the gift of agape so that you can genuinely experience God's love in your life.

 

I agree entirely with everything you say here except the first two lines where you ask a question and make up an answer for me.

So what do we disagree about

Ps.  I love the law, if by law you mean the 1050 NT commands.  I don't have much time for the 613 OT laws.  Basically if Christ kept it or commands it in the NT then that's what I aim to keep.  The concept of "curse of the law" means different things to different people.  To me it means the death penalty resulting from sin.  In that case I agree even with your first two lines.

[pnattmbtc]

Thank you for you kind comments in your previous post.

My pleasure.  I like sharing ideas.

I believe in supernatural imputed righteousness, whereby God, supernaturally overlooks our filthiness and sees us as "good".

I don't believe in this.  What good would this do?  What changes?  If what changes is that God looks at us differently, as if we were something different than we are, whereas in reality we continue no different than what we were, how does this help?

I reject the concept of imputed badness which supposedly happened at "the fall" whereby something supposedly happened to make us worse.

I would reject this too.  I don't think the badness was imputed, but actually happened.

I feel this is totally unnecessary that we need to be made worse.  David said that "man at his best state is altogether vanity" Ps 39:5.

This was after the fall.

[pnattmbtc]

Wingnut: The concept of "curse of the law" means different things to different people.  To me it means the death penalty resulting from sin. 

 

This is a good observation, that the curse of the law means different things to different people.  If by the "penalty of sin" you mean "penalty" in terms of cause and effect, I agree with this. (e.g. if you get into an accident by running a stop sign, one could say the penatly for running the stop sign was the accident).  However, if "penalty" is understood as something imposed, I don't agree with this idea.

I believe sin results in death because of what sin is by its very nature.

[Wingnut]

 

My pleasure.  I like sharing ideas.

I don't believe in this.  What good would this do?  What changes?  If what changes is that God looks at us differently, as if we were something different than we are, whereas in reality we continue no different than what we were, how does this help?

Read Romans 4 where in verses11, 22, 23, 24 as well as Rom 5:13, Gal 3:6 Jas 2:23 all talk of Abraham and us having imputed righteousness.

"How does this help".  It ensures that we are saved by grace and not by works.  Grace means supernatural forgiveness of sin.  Forgiveness of sin is like where your spouse has done you wrong, and you are justifiably annoyed with her, but you decide to "let it go" and be close again.

God does not want a soul in His kingdom who thinks he deserves to be there.  Why don't we deserve to be there?  Because all have sinned (irrespective of any good we might have done).  Good works do not cancel out bad ones.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God : Not of works , lest any man should boast (Eph 2:8-9)

Thus any law keeping or agape love we show, or any sabbath keeping - it all does not amount to a hill of beans.  Or as Snania Twain might say "That don't impress me much".

[Wingnut]

 

This is a good observation, that the curse of the law means different things to different people.  If by the "penalty of sin" you mean "penalty" in terms of cause and effect, I agree with this. (e.g. if you get into an accident by running a stop sign, one could say the penatly for running the stop sign was the accident).  However, if "penalty" is understood as something imposed, I don't agree with this idea.

I believe sin results in death because of what sin is by its very nature.

I believe that sin results in God supernaturally imposing on us the penalty that after we die He just will not resurrect us to eternal life because that is what being "cursed" means.  When you were put to death under the Old Covenant it was a type of being put to eternal (second) death by God.

Edit.  This sounds unclear.  The Old Testament law had the power to curse anyone who broke the law.

Frankly, all it added was another nail in our coffin.  Even without the OT law, people were cursed already in that without a saviour, there was no resurrection from the dead.  So the Old Covenant did not do much anyhow.  Folks could not keep all 613 laws so they were not really saved from the sting of death.  The law really just added to their guilt.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Wingnut

[pnattmbtc]

Read Romans 4 where in verses11, 22, 23, 24 as well as Rom 5:13, Gal 3:6 Jas 2:23 all talk of Abraham and us having imputed righteousness.

Not in the sense of a legal fiction, which is what I understood from what you wrote (but I could well have misunderstood you).

"How does this help".  It ensures that we are saved by grace and not by works.  Grace means supernatural forgiveness of sin.  Forgiveness of sin is like where your spouse has done you wrong, and you are justifiably annoyed with her, but you decide to "let it go" and be close again.

God does not want a soul in His kingdom who thinks he deserves to be there.  Why don't we deserve to be there?  Because all have sinned (irrespective of any good we might have done).  Good works do not cancel out bad ones.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God : Not of works , lest any man should boast (Eph 2:8-9)

Thus any law keeping or agape love we show, or any sabbath keeping - it all does not amount to a hill of beans.  Or as Snania Twain might say "That don't impress me much".

.I agree completely with the emphasis that our salvation is by grace, but how does this work?  Does God impute righteousness as a deal, if we do X then God will do Y?  And if so, what is X?

The way I think of this is that God extends grace to all, and those who don't refuse it will be benefited (actually all benefit in some way, but those who don't refuse will eternally benefit). Do you agree with this?

By the way, I absolutely loved the spouse illustration of forgiveness (which leads me to think we might be on the same page; we'll see).

[Wingnut]

 

.I agree completely with the emphasis that our salvation is by grace, but how does this work?  Does God impute righteousness as a deal, if we do X then God will do Y?  And if so, what is X?

The way I think of this is that God extends grace to all, and those who don't refuse it will be benefited (actually all benefit in some way, but those who don't refuse will eternally benefit). Do you agree with this?

I agree with you that God extends (the offer) of grace to all and those who don't refuse it will be benefitted.

The classical answer is that all who accept Christ as their saviour, repent and are baptised will be saved.  That is the classical X answer.

I tend to feel that X also includes loving God.  I may be on a limb here but I believe that salvation is all about relationship with God.  I do not believe God will resurrect anyone who is not His friend. That is how the thief on the cross was saved - he befriended Christ even in those few seconds.

[8thdaypriest]

There are times where I am 100% behind "spookiness" or the supernatural and your last sentence I 100% agree with.  The only righteousness acceptable to God is the righteousness of Abraham.  Abraham believed God, and it was IMPUTED to him for righteousness.  To take it further, all have sinned, and only the blood of Christ is effective at covering our sins.  And when our sins are covered, Christ, as High priest, pleads our case with the Father against our accuser, Satan.

Now when someone accuses me of unrighteousness, or points out my flaws and deficiencies in law keeping or calls me narcissistic or trying to use self-will to gain self-righteousness, I plead "Guilty of all of the above and much, much more".  Then I add "So what is your point - the only goodness anyone has is imputed righteousness, through Christ.  Accuse me all you like, Christ can cover all that and impute to me righteousness, because (like Abraham) I believe God, and He alone imputes righteousness".

Imputed righteousness is "spooky" or supernatural.  I am happy to talk all day about the marvellousness of grace and imputed righteousness.

I will however strongly reject the spookiness behind the concept of "fallen man" as if something was added or subtracted from man at the non-fall.

Even the unfallen, sinless Adam and Eve could not have lived forever.  They needed to eat of the Tree of Life, a symbol of Christ.  And they did eat of the Tree of Life while in the garden.  If this tree was there with this wonderful name in the middle of the garden, and God had told them that of EVERY tree they may freely eat - obviously they ate of that tree - almost like a pre communion, communion.  But like communion, we have to do it continually, and once cut off from The Tree (and Christ, the LORD who walked with them in the garden), they were doomed to "surely die".

 

Two things Wingnut,

First:  I believe the Father forgave all sin, for all time, immediately - when Eve and then Adam sinned.  Because He IS FORGIVENESS.  His Son does NOT have to plead with Him, to "get Him" to forgive us.  The Father SENT His Son to tell us that we ARE forgiven.  We can "go home" - like the prodigal son.  But most do not want to go home.  Most do NOT want to live peacefully in a kingdom of perfect love.  They just want to buy "fire insurance". 

The LORD thru Moses used a phrase, "the priest shall make atonement for him" - concerning the one who brought a sin offering, along with a whole burnt offering, and the meal and drink offerings. 

03722 rp;K' kaphar {kaw-far'}  is translated as "atonement".  And it is also translated as "reconciliation".  So Jesus - "the priest" makes reconciliation, for us.  He brings us to a point of reconciliation with our Father God. 

I personally believe - what was recorded in the Most Holy Place of Heaven, is the names of individuals who have expressed (thru sacrifice in the OT, or statement of faith in the NT) the desire to return home.  The names of those who are reconciled. 

I realize that Satan - the accuser - comes with the list of my sins, claiming the right of dominion over me, but he will be told that I belong to Jesus.  My name is in the Book of Eternal Life. 

In the NT, we read:  "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation;" (2Co 5:18).  that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us."

In this verse, God is "not counting" the trespasses of "the world" against them.    If God the Father has "not counted" our trespasses - if there's no list of my sins up in Heaven, then the Father did NOT have to "accept me".  He could welcome me home.  But that's different than changing His mind towards me. 

Second:

I believe that Adam and Eve were created with physical, mortal nature - so that - IF they sinned, and came under the dominion of Satan, they COULD die instantly, in the "lake of fire".

  See - if they had been created with the nature of angels, as spirit beings, then humans who remain in a state of rebellion, would have to be "tormented unto the age of the ages" (forever and ever) in the "lake of fire", as Satan and his angels will be.   Immediate physical DEATH - will be a "good thing" for them, compared with what is in store for Satan and his spirit army.

At the Second Coming, the redeemed will receive new "spiritual bodies" and will be "like the angels". 

The fact that Adam and Eve were created with physical bodies that would die (without the Tree of Life) tells me that God anticipated "the fall". 

 

[Robert]

I believe in supernatural imputed righteousness, whereby God, supernaturally overlooks our filthiness and sees us as "good".

No, He can't do that and be righteous.  He just can't pretend you're righteous when you are not.  That would be dishonest.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Robert, I could go through all of 1 Cor 13 which defines "love" or agape and I could show you how some primitive tribes "suffer long and are kind..."etc. and thus prove to you that they have agape as defined by this last word on love.  I could even tell you that I even occasionally "vaunt not myself, am not puffed up..sometimes don't seek my own... sometimes think no evil".  I could try to justify myself by pointing to my law keeping or sprinkle a little bit of Sabbath dust into the mix etc.  No action on my part is good enough.  Only God can supernaturally impute righteousness. 

You ask me what agape is and instead of responding logically, you go off on a tangent.  I don't believe you want to have a serious, biblical conversation.  

[Robert]

gal 5:14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."  

Now, how many commands are in the commandment, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."?

You haven't gave me a direct answer yet....How many commands?

[pnattmbtc]

Wingnut: I believe that sin results in God supernaturally imposing on us the penalty that after we die He just will not resurrect us to eternal life because that is what being "cursed" means.  When you were put to death under the Old Covenant it was a type of being put to eternal (second) death by God.

Edit.  This sounds unclear.  The Old Testament law had the power to curse anyone who broke the law.

Frankly, all it added was another nail in our coffin.  Even without the OT law, people were cursed already in that without a saviour, there was no resurrection from the dead.  So the Old Covenant did not do much anyhow.  Folks could not keep all 613 laws so they were not really saved from the sting of death.  The law really just added to their guilt.

 I didn't understand this post.  However, I agreed with the next one, which I'll respond to after this one.

What do you think about this? 

The principles of kindness, mercy, and love, taught and exemplified by our Saviour, are a transcript of the will and character of God. Christ declared that He taught nothing except that which He had received from His Father. The principles of the divine government are in perfect harmony with the Saviour's precept, "Love your enemies." God executes justice upon the wicked, for the good of the universe, and even for the good of those upon whom His judgments are visited. He would make them happy if He could do so in accordance with the laws of His government and the justice of His character. He surrounds them with the tokens of His love, He grants them a knowledge of His law, and follows them with the offers of His mercy; but they despise His love, make void His law, and reject His mercy. While constantly receiving His gifts, they dishonor the Giver; they hate God because they know that He abhors their sins. The Lord bears long with their perversity; but the decisive hour will come at last, when their destiny is to be decided. Will He then chain these rebels to His side? Will He force them to do His will?

Those who have chosen Satan as their leader and have been controlled by his power are not prepared to enter the presence of God. Pride, deception, licentiousness, cruelty, have become fixed in their characters. Can they enter heaven to dwell forever with those whom they despised and hated on earth? Truth will never be agreeable to a liar; meekness will not satisfy self-esteem and pride; purity is not acceptable to the corrupt; disinterested love does not appear attractive to the selfish. What source of enjoyment could heaven offer to those who are wholly absorbed in earthly and selfish interests?

Could those whose lives have been spent in rebellion against God be suddenly transported to heaven and witness the high, the holy state of perfection that ever exists there,-- every soul filled with love, every countenance beaming with joy, enrapturing music in melodious strains rising in honor of God and the Lamb, and ceaseless streams of light flowing upon the redeemed from the face of Him who sitteth upon the throne,--could those whose hearts are filled with hatred of God, of truth and holiness, mingle with the heavenly throng and join their songs of praise? Could they endure the glory of God and the Lamb? No, no; years of probation were granted them, that they might form characters for heaven; but they have never trained the mind to love purity; they have never learned the language of heaven, and now it is too late. A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them. The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God. (GC 541-543)

Sorry for the length here, but this is one of my favorite passages in any book, and has been one of the most influential in my life.

[pnattmbtc]

Wingnut: I agree with you that God extends (the offer) of grace to all and those who don't refuse it will be benefitted.

The classical answer is that all who accept Christ as their saviour, repent and are baptised will be saved.  That is the classical X answer.

I tend to feel that X also includes loving God.  I may be on a limb here but I believe that salvation is all about relationship with God.  I do not believe God will resurrect anyone who is not His friend. That is how the thief on the cross was saved - he befriended Christ even in those few seconds.

I agree with this, especially the friend part.  How I think of this is that God will take everyone to heaven who will be happy there. 

[Wingnut]

You haven't gave me a direct answer yet....How many commands?

I think one command - to love others.

The "as you love yourself" is assumed.

In my experience, while the "as you love yourself" is the general rule, this rule is violated as often as "brotherly love".  Many brothers do not love.

Not loving yourself may mean different things to you and I since you say that being suicidal is still self love, where I say it is self loathing.

[Wingnut]

 I didn't understand this post.  However, I agreed with the next one, which I'll respond to after this one.

What do you think about this? 

Sorry for the length here, but this is one of my favorite passages in any book, and has been one of the most influential in my life.

That is a beautiful piece of writing.  I presume "GC" means it is from the Great Controversy.  What you quoted is exactly what I would have liked to have said.

[Wingnut]

You ask me what agape is and instead of responding logically, you go off on a tangent.  I don't believe you want to have a serious, biblical conversation.  

Robert, where you and I differ slightly (if I understand you correctly) is as follows.

1.  You believe that man is born inherently sinful, a leftover of "fallen nature".  I believe he is inherently sinful because he makes bad choices.

2.  You believe that man cannot of himself produce agape (because of self-centredness).  I believe that man is self centred but that he does at times display agape by say "suffering long and being kind".  Say my wife has a pet interest that I am totally disinterested in and I listen and act interested, nod at the appropriate times and ask a few questions - I have just displayed agape through self-will.  My natural reaction would be to talk about something more interesting.

3.  You believe that agape is the nature of God since "God is love/agape.  I agree.  But you go further saying sinful man cannot have or display agape naturally.  I believe that sinful man, made in the image of God, does at times exhibit agape and that there is nothing spiritual about agape.  Agape does not HAVE to be imputed to us by God.  We, of our own free wills can decide to, "vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up...think no evil.."  It is my choice whether I want to think evil or not.  That is why I don't watch horror, or nurture grudges etc.

4.  You feel that the problem with man is that because he is selfish, the solution is imputed agape.  My feeling is that the problem with man is that he is selfish and the solution is imputed grace to wink at or overlook that selfishness, while with Spirit help we learn to be less selfish.

5.  We both believe in the absolute necessity for Spirit help.  You emphasise agape. Maybe you and I agree mostly since the first and second commands are to love God and love man.  Where I differ from you a bit is that I think that the natural, unconverted man can love/agape somewhat without Spirit help.  Why I say this is because to love/agape is a choice, involving self will, which even pagans display when they choose to do 1 Cor 13 having never read it. 

[Wingnut]

No, He can't do that and be righteous.  He just can't pretend you're righteous when you are not.  That would be dishonest.

I find it very strange that you say this Robert.  It is very "dishonest" of the Father to take my sins and place them on Christ.  This made Christ dishonestly unrighteous in the Father's eyes, to the point that the Father abandoned Christ.  Christ cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me".  The answer. Because Wingnut and Robert now stand dishonestly clean, while Christ has become the whipping boy in their stead.  This dishonesty is at the very core of Christian belief.  God has to impute cleanness to us.  You feel He has to impute agape to us and REALLY clean us up before we can be saved.

[Wingnut]

I agree with this, especially the friend part.  How I think of this is that God will take everyone to heaven who will be happy there. 

Then we are on the same page.

On a somewhat different theme, someone I respect on religious matters loves to point out to me that angels who lived in heaven actually wanted to join Lucifer in leaving heaven (possibly 1/3 of the angels - but this is based on "his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven" (Rev 12:4).  Rev 12:3-4 could simply refer to a future comet with a tail which covers 1/3 of the sky.  But I digress.  Point is I agree with your statement that God will take everyone to heaven who will be happy there, men and angels.

[Wingnut]

Two things Wingnut,

First:  I believe the Father forgave all sin, for all time, immediately - when Eve and then Adam sinned. 

Hi 8thdaypriest

I would love to know why you think that.

Because He IS FORGIVENESS. 

But He is also a God of Judgment and justice.  Nothing yet had been done to deserve forgiveness unless you believe the Father was anticipating the future sacrifice of Christ.

His Son does NOT have to plead with Him, to "get Him" to forgive us. 

I believe he does.  That is the role of a priest, to intercede with God on behalf of the accused (almost like a defence lawyer with The Judge.

The Father SENT His Son to tell us that we ARE forgiven.  We can "go home" - like the prodigal son. 

But the prodigal son has to come to himself and want forgiveness.  We have to come to ourselves and come to Jesus.  These are conditions.

But most do not want to go home.  Most do NOT want to live peacefully in a kingdom of perfect love.  They just want to buy "fire insurance". 

I am among those not wanting to go home quite yet.  There is plenty of time for home later.

The LORD thru Moses used a phrase, "the priest shall make atonement for him" - concerning the one who brought a sin offering, along with a whole burnt offering, and the meal and drink offerings. 

03722 rp;K' kaphar {kaw-far'}  is translated as "atonement".  And it is also translated as "reconciliation".  So Jesus - "the priest" makes reconciliation, for us.  He brings us to a point of reconciliation with our Father God. 

Why would Jesus do this if at the time of Adam and Eve all reconciliation was already complete as you originally said?  I agree with what you write immediately above however.

I personally believe - what was recorded in the Most Holy Place of Heaven, is the names of individuals who have expressed (thru sacrifice in the OT, or statement of faith in the NT) the desire to return home.  The names of those who are reconciled. 

I personally believe that God has a perfect memory so it does not matter if there is a backup hard copy of our names.  You may be correct however.

I realize that Satan - the accuser - comes with the list of my sins, claiming the right of dominion over me, but he will be told that I belong to Jesus.  My name is in the Book of Eternal Life. 

I have no problem with that.

In the NT, we read:  "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation;" (2Co 5:18).  that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us."

In this verse, God is "not counting" the trespasses of "the world" against them.    If God the Father has "not counted" our trespasses - if there's no list of my sins up in Heaven, then the Father did NOT have to "accept me".  He could welcome me home.  But that's different than changing His mind towards me. 

I believe just as the accuser of the brethren is hard at his job today until just before the end, so Christ the High Priest continually makes intercession for us.  If it is an ongoing process (as I believe) rather than a once off process sometime in the distant past (as you believe) then it really makes no difference to the outcome viz. that the righteous are exonerated and the guilty are punished.

 

Second:

I believe that Adam and Eve were created with physical, mortal nature - so that - IF they sinned, and came under the dominion of Satan, they COULD die instantly, in the "lake of fire".

I agree with you  

See - if they had been created with the nature of angels, as spirit beings, then humans who remain in a state of rebellion, would have to be "tormented unto the age of the ages" (forever and ever) in the "lake of fire", as Satan and his angels will be.   Immediate physical DEATH - will be a "good thing" for them, compared with what is in store for Satan and his spirit army.

Here I part ways with you and I am in the minority among believers.  I believe angels can and will be wiped out and die in the lake of fire, just like mortal men.

At the Second Coming, the redeemed will receive new "spiritual bodies" and will be "like the angels". 

Just because something is spiritual does not mean it cannot die.  Christ was spirit (God) and He was turned to flesh and died - really died as in stone dead.  God can and will turn the fallen angels to stone dead and not raise them, and I have strong proof for that.

The fact that Adam and Eve were created with physical bodies that would die (without the Tree of Life) tells me that God anticipated "the fall". 

Absolutely.  You and I agree with this, but many do not.

[Robert]

I think one command - to love others.

Exactly.....Hence there's no self-love in agape.