Huh? The first part is fine, but the second is a head-scratcher. What makes you think Moses thought God was kidding?

I think this is the right way of looking at this, especially in conjunction with the comments from GC 35-37. That is:



Combining your insight with this one, what we see is that the Great Controversy is a real war. It's not that God destroys people because He gets angry at them, but there are rules of engagement, and if there is no one to intercede, or not enough interest in righteousness, I suppose one could put it, then God withdraws, and allows the destroyer to do his work.

God is in a quandary. On the one hand, if God never allowed sin/Satan to have any sway, no one would be able to discern their malignant effects. Indeed, from the discussion of "It Is Finished," we can see that even holy angels had trouble discerning this until the cross, so clever is Satan in camouflaging his purposes and actions.

One the other hand, if God did not intervene at all, Satan/sin would destroy everyone, so their wouldn't even be a Great Controversy. So God needs to allow sin/Satan to have some sway, so that the cause/effect relationship of sin and its results can be seen, but not too much sway. So where to draw the line? That requires divine wisdom. One thing we know is that our prayers have a lot to do with God's decisions, which is an awesome thing.

I very much appreciate what you have written. I use to believe that sin was just in the mind. However, explain to me how sin causes cancer in animals, and thorns on leaves. The is a real physical aspect to sin. NJK wants to say that these things are a result of the extraction of the Tree of Life, however he has produced no evidence to that fact. The Tree was in Eden for a long time after the fall. There also has been multiple falls! Yes, Eve believed the lies of Satan, and that is what led to her fall. It was not her fall. Eating the fruit was her fall. Sin is hereditary and cultivated. Christ took on fallen nature, but did not "participate in its sin". She often refers to sinful human nature. The nature of sin is one thing that Satan has lied about. Christ was "made to be sin", yet we know in His mind, He never lost faith in His Father. If sin is in the mind only, then Christ could not be made to be sin. And while many diseases can have their start in the mind, there are many diseases for which we have clear genetic causes.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, APL. There certainly are physical effects to sin. You mentioned the impact on the animal kingdom, and one could add even inanimate objects. Consider the moon, for example. It seems unlikely that what it looks like now is how God created it. Destructive weather is another item that comes to mind.

But these things can be explained in terms of actions, thoughts, decisions, I think. For example, if I make the decision to harm or kill you physically, then that has a physical impact. But it's still true that sin is a thing of the mind.

In the case of Satan, I'd still say sin is a thing of the mind. Satan has a great mind (in terms of intellect), and is able to do the genetic things you mentioned, and cause havoc in all sorts of ways.

The point I was making deals with how to get rid of sin. If sin is a matter of the mind, then you get rid of sin by changing the way people think, the decisions they make, and the actions they perform. Of course, there are physical aspects as well, such as sinful nature vs. resurrected sinless nature, but the real essence of the sin problem is one of the mind is my belief and was my point.

To deal with sin in a final "once and forever" way involves every sentient being in the universe being convinced that God was correct, and has acted virtuously, in harmony with His character of love, benevolence, justice, mercy, etc. This, I believe, is the primary purpose of the final judgment. Everyone else will have been convinced by that point in time, so only rebel humans remain.

Tom,
How do we get rid of sin - we also need to know what sin is. If sin is only in the mind, then we need to explain what happened to Satan. He was lying in heaven about God. Yet, he had not gone so far that if he would have confessed and submitted to God, he would have been reinstated into his office. There was a point of no return for him. Man on the other hand, ate the fruit, and there was no return. Satan was telling lies, and had not gone too far. Man believed the lie, then ate the fruit. Believing the lie, was not the fall, it led to the fall. The disbelief of God was not the fall, it led to the fall. And there were multiple falls.And in the plan of redemption, we need to explain how what Jesus achieved, is applied to us. Is it just that we see the life of Christ and that influences us? (Moral Influence). Or is it more?So the righteousness of Christ is a cure for transgression AND restoration of spiritual health. His righteousness in upon us, AND in our hearts and characters. It is physical and spiritual.

As this is one of those purely commentary Chapters in the DA vs. the narrative ones, I would see that EGW would be stating what the chief issues in this “It is Finished” topic will be from the start. And so I find it striking that she does not state in the introductory paragraph in question (DA 758.3) this chief issue for this “It Is Finished” chapter that; ‘the angels did not understand that death being the inevitable result of sin, especially if this had been a crucial understanding of that statement. It thus seems clear to me that it is the ‘character of Satan’, ‘his proposed principles’ and the nature of his rebellion that are what was pointedly understood at the Cross. Indeed simply by understanding these completely, it can then be seen that ‘“death was the inevitable result of” this proposed ‘lawlessness’ [= “sin” - 1 John 3:4] course of life, that Satan had proposed, and cunningly concealed and defended all of this time.’...



...So while the whole chapter deals with that theme, I see the latter mention that ‘death in the inevitable result of sin’ (i.e., this proposed “Law transgressing/lawless course”), as being a sub-statement to these chief ones. What had to be understood so that this conclusion could be understood was the true nature, character and principles of Satan’s proposed course and of Satan himself, as candidly self-exposed during his all-out murderous efforts at Calvary.



Perhaps this is indeed the case, however, as we are dealing pointed with what they angels and humans in worlds unfallen had to come to understand at/by the Cross, my statement does emphasizes this pertinent point.



Here could potentially be a reconciling of our views. You say that ‘the angels could see that there [was] death involved, but the cause wasn’t clear’ and this is pointedly what I find completely irrational, hence object wholly to your view. If first of all, as you claim, the death of Lucifer in heaven its self would have been done by the consuming glory of God because of sin being in its presence, then how/why wouldn’t these intelligent angels see the direct correlation here. I.e., Satan was killed because ‘iniquity/sin/unrighteousness was found in him’ (Ezek 28:15). Just like I can see a direct correlation to something though I do not understand how/why this is the result. That is why it seems clear to me that the issue is not surfacely that sin=death, but the deeper issue of “why”. I.e., WHY is ‘death the inevitable result of sin’, either naturally or by God’s intervene action. So it is this why that I see that the angels needed to be answered and its answer is not to be found in a scientific explanation, but by answering the GC issue of ‘why should those who choose to live outside of God’s Law must die.

I say “must” because I have now come to Theologically see that if God had not imposed the Tree of Life banning injunction on man, as He states, sinful man would have lived forever. (I think that point, which you evidently do not agree with, is amply and explicitly supported in the Bible and SOP. As I said, your view that ‘this is not true because all life comes from Jesus’ is easily reconcilable that God will manifestly, tangibly impart this life to us through the River of Life flowing from His throne. It is not by osmosis that we have perpetual life, by only by actually, physically, ingesting this “supernatural” provision of God.) So I therefore see that the angels needed to understand why God had taken such measure to make those who choose to life outside of His Law die. In other words, why didn’t He let sinful man continue to eat of the Tree of Life. Back to heaven’s fall, if He had killed Lucifer, that same question would have been asked.

I also see that angels are not immortal, so they need to also ingest a “Fruit of Life” also containing this similar “Supernatural, life perpetuating power”. So when Satan and the disloyal angels were banished from Heaven, they lost access to this Fruit, and just like man was thus limited to ca. 1000 years of existence with it, angels probably have a 10,000 life expectancy without it. That is how, Satan also knew at that first expulsion that “his time was little/few/brief”, i.e., limited. (Rev 12:12)

So... these are the underlying reasons why I have said that the issue here is: “is this eradicating death penalty for living without/outside of God’s law deserved. That is what I understand in the statement that ‘it was to be shown that “death is the inevitable result of sin”’. And so, immediately bringing about this result without the need of 6000+ years to first demonstrate this “inevitable result” would, if understood, have been seen by all as a fair and deserving act and not an arbitrary one. Again, if any sin results immediately in death then there really is nothing else to prove, and that by 6000+ years of sin. So I do only see here that it is the why sinners must die, as being the issue, as, if these sinners were allowed to eat of the fruit of life, they would have lived forever, indeed right next to righteous people. However God took measures to prevent that possibility and the ongoing GC is now to demonstrate exactly why! I.e. why must sinners be made to die. (Of course if you don’t see what Gen 3:22-24 is saying, indeed all physically stemming from the perpetual Life that Jesus/God provides to man, I do not expect you to agree here.)



This, honestly, “validly”, ongoing GC is seeking to demonstrate that God’s law, and the ultimate consequence of eternal death is indeed not an arbitrary act of God, but sinners must be made to suffer this fate. Indeed God’s presence would consume them, when, as I understand it, they reach a certain level of sinfulness, so then why not let them live apart from God’s presence, i.e., in a perfect world like ours were, with a Tree of Life, and where God never visits or without shielding His consuming glory. Somewhat like how Satan and the Fallen angels have lived for over 6000 years as vile sinners outside of God presence, though with many in person visit with God. That also implicates this GC issue of “why must sinners die”? [And the answer is not the circular maxim that “sinners can’ t but die” because, as I said, if that what the direct cause-effect, I do not think that 6000+ years of a GC, with billions of human deaths and suffering would be needed to prove that already inevitable self-reality. Angels can readily grasp that “scientific” reality. The actual issue is “why”, and not “why” this happens, but why must it be allowed to, even made to, happen.]



The SOP text/narrative actually indicates otherwise. The angels had bee “sympathetic” to Satan. They thus found his arguments plausible and needed the GC to resolve the questions/doubts they had. However EGW clearly says that even at/after the Cross, they still had more doubts and questions, however they chose, for the remaining time now ca. 2000 years, to no longer give Satan the platform he had at the gates of Heaven to make known his cause, even accusations. Since the GC issues were still unresolve yet they still chose to now ban Satan, then I can only see that decision as being now based suddenly based upon having seen the true nature and character of Satan. I.e., he was not the honest being that he was portraying before, but a vile murderer. And since their casting out decision was based on that, and not on the fact that their GC questions/doubts had been resolved, then, in regards to the GC, it was obliviously arbitrary, choosing the honesty and character issues instead. (Much like what we see many times in politics where a candidate loses merely on a substantively irrelevant character flaw or past mistake. E.g., cheated on his wife.)



With all due respect, I baffledly hold a potential LOL laughter because I do not see how SDA’s commonly make this “wishful thinking” statement. I have exegetically dealt with this issue head on in my blog. See this post. As clearly stated in the SOP, the war in Heaven was a show of brute physical strength, even more than the resulting, forceful expulsion of the losing party.





It seems clear to me by that SOP statement that the angels merely knew for certain that what Jesus had suffered through assured the redemption of man and doom of Satan, but they did not understand all then, i.e., all that is implicated in lawlessness, and that not until “when the great controversy shall be ended. ” (DA 764.3) So I see here that they only acted on what they had come to understand at the Cross and that was ‘the character of Satan, his principles and the nature of his rebellion’ (DA 758.3). I.e., these respectively were that he was a liar, deceiver and murderer, his principles were all crafty deceptions and the nature of his rebellion was out of jealous of Christ and desires of self-exaltation. Again they, rejected Satan before thoroughly seeing the invalidity of his proposed course, as it was still yet to be revealed in the remaining 2000 years of the GC. As prophesied, the cast out Satan was now going to continue his work through the lawless one, the anti-Christ. Just look how many people are deceived by the papacy and are somewhat sympathetic to Catholics as fellow Christians, even Sunday worshippers at large, and also the United States and its “freedom and democracy claims”, and you’ll get a taste of how the angels could be sympathetic to Satan and his similar “freedom” cause. However for true believers, the evil in these law breaking and unBiblical freedom systems will be concretely exposed, and that, when the speak as a dragon and seek to kill those who follow God and honour His Law.



Seems to me that you are backpedalling here, to only now make it ‘one of many issues’ whereas before you had said that this was the main point of the Cross and this “It Is Finished” chapter. E.g. this statement of yours:





Only countering your previously expressed view that had needed to prove that ‘death must be shown to be the inevitable result of sin’. I surely cannot be held responsible and condemned as ‘not making sense’ if you are just subtly changing points/emphasis in mid discussion!!

As I said, the issue of death being the deserved result for sin, had yet to be fully and objectively proven to them, even after the Cross.



Well glad to hear that multi-faceted view from you. Seems like a first to me. Perhaps I had misunderstood or misread you in the past. However it does not seem so to me.



I contrarily see that DA 764.4 states that angels only understood at/by the Cross that ultimate victory was assured by Christ successful sacrifice, by anyone who would choose to accept it. However the question/issue of ‘why sinner should be made to die’ would not be fully understood until after the GC was “ended”.



It is parenthetical in the chapter, that easy to see, however in going back to what had first occurred in heaven to open up this GC, it is thus “foundational”, indeed stating the “foundational issues” involved.



Your entitled to maintain your view here. I rather clearly see that it would be seen as arbitrary because it would not be understood why sinner must be made to die, (as I also stated next), indeed as in the Garden of Eden after the Fall, by the barring of access to the Tree of Life.



I think I have earlier more fully explained what I mean here and that is that the “why” God would allow this to happen, i.e., sinners die, and that immediately, at any trace presence of sin, first had to be demonstrated and self-explained by the unfolding of Satan’s plans in the GC.



I rather would see it as “why he had deserved to suffer that normative death”. However, I more specifically believe that such a death is only possible with a certain level of sin. Prior to that, the sinner must be actively put to death. And this premature/pre-emptive killing is indeed what needed to be demonstrated as deserving to be so done.



I do not see that I am confusing anything according to my understanding. The angels were learning through the sin outplaying lives of the “wicked rebels” why sin was indeed deserving of death, indeed as God had made it so since the Fall. Don’t you see/think that it is the sinful outplaying of sinners who can access the tree of life and thus live forever that would pointedly focus on why sin is not the course to follow vs. actually making them be subject to death by barring access to that supernatural power. This is where I see that this GC has honestly resulted in the opposing side being given a platform of plausibility. Satan’s argument being that this imposed death to humans is not fair and arbitrary. So this GC is demonstrating exactly why this was the best choice and that this penalty of death is a just imposition.



I understand this “mind thing’ as being that material. As I understand it, science (e.g, brain activity imaging/scans) easily proves that thoughts produce a tangible imprint on the brain, so thoughts themselves may indeed be tangible, even if microscopic. And whether “material” i.e, tangible or not, that is quibbling beside the point as sin is still somehow present in each human distinctly and that is what comes to be consumed by God’s glory.



I rather see it as the inherent, defaultly affronting, presumptuousness in this, i.e., fallen/sinful man thus being able to “understand/discern” the infinite God?!



I have priorly addressed that exegetically inaccurate statement of yours that God’s physical glory = His character. See here. You have/had not responded to that exposition.

As I understand it, it is because, sin has not had neither the time or spiritual unrestraint to reach that “critical mass”/self-combusting point in this GC, by God’s various limitation and spiritual influence, especially through believers.

Also though EGW repeatedly makes the claim that the wicked are slain by the brightness of God’s glory, it is actually from a misunderstanding of hers, from the mistranslation of 2 Thess 2:8 (e.g., GC 657.1) -see below. The Bible also does not indicate this in the prophecies of Revelation.

The angry multitudes are suddenly arrested. Their mocking cries die away. The objects of their murderous rage are forgotten. With fearful forebodings they gaze upon the symbol of God's covenant and long to be shielded from its overpowering brightness. {GC 635.3}

Notice also the harmony of Paul’s statement in 2 Thess 2:8a and Rev. 19:21a
Paul’s “spirit of his mouth” could be made to thematically match Revelation’s “sword of his mouth” as symbolically the sword = the word of God, which in turn is only rightly expressed through God’s Spirit, thus becoming that offensive “two-edged, Sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17b; Heb 4:12). All this to say that that symbolism checks out, and Eschatologically indicates to me, that this antichrist kingdom and its followers will be Spiritually slain by this word of God.

So I only see that the antichrist power will be ‘put to an end by the appearance of Christ’s Return’ (2 Thess 2:8 NASB & GC 635.5) and not be ‘slain by His glory’s brightness’ as EGW incorrectly understood and stated.



I neither see it as a ‘purely spiritual issue’ nor that it will be a ‘brightness-caused destruction’, but an actively done, Lake of Fire casting and “sword of God” act of God. Historically, this would have been a more literal sword, however Eschatologicallly, it will be more spiritual, i.e., by the Zionistic Gospel/Word work that would have been done by God’s Triumphant Church. (E.g., Isa 60:12). That will also be part of this GC resolution.
Again, the non self-combustion destruction is out of tangibly necessity because of not yet fully ripened sin in man despite these permitted 6000+ years.



(That may be a cute/curt answer but I do not see what you actually understand by it).
My answer:





What’s with the “Sir”?!? Perhaps you think I am not serious in my “deserving” view here. I know I am! As explained at the top, that is what I have understood to be underlyingly, clearly and incontrovertibly implied.



As also, as stated in DA 764.3, the character of Satan (perhaps ‘more fully’) all in relation to the remaining GC issues, which indicates to me that the decision of the angels to cast him out at the Cross was indeed done with a not yet full understanding of even him. However they had seen enough about him through what he had endeavored to do to Christ. This revelation to “all created intelligences” includes the angels and other unfallen beings and not only fallen humans or else that surely would have been pointedly said.



If that could all been done at the Cross, as you had claimed, even for people living after the Cross, the EGW would be writing about this full demonstration and vindication of God and His Character at the Cross and we would be reading of exactly how this is the case, indeed just like we learn a lot from what was revealed about the GC in the SOP, some of these being things that Angels had learned at the Cross. However the remaining 2000 years of this GC are first needed to be fulfilled to completely resolve the remaining issue. That is why all will have this revelation/understanding only at the end of the GC.



Though I pointedly believe sin to inceptively originate its harmful effects in the mind, combined with physical degenerations due to the absence of Fruit of Life, I really do not begin to at all see the validity of your remaining notions from the statements in that chapter. The issue to me is clearly the deserving of the effected punishment of death which prior to a certain point of full sin maturity has to be actively/forcefully done by God, as repeatedly seen in the Bible



My countering argument here again, on top of a mistranslation issue, is that I do not see it depicted in the Prophecies of Revelation. And any EGW claim to this was influenced by the mistranslation of 2 Thess 2:8

Also that God's action is passive is made clear by the statement that had God "left" Satan and his follower to "reap the full result of their sin" they would have perished.

It is indeed passive when the full result of sin is being reap. However here, there was no evidentiary ground allow or even, naturally cause this passive action, so it would have had to be a forced act of God, even if passive and that is what the angels would not have understood. Instead they would have thought that the punishment didn’t fit the crime and that this had to be forced by God. Hence the time to let it naturally fully mature to naturally reap this result. However, as I see it in th Bible and SOP, that natural result, by God limitations and intervenings, will not be achieved in these 6000 years. Perhaps the resetting flood destruction also prevented this from become the case.

"to rid the world of the Nazi Regime and its lesser evil Axis Allies"
Evil? In whose mind? Aren't all wars done to eliminate "evil" in someone's mind? Who says the International Conventions are "right"? What was Hitler's purpose? Wasn't it to eliminate "evil" danger? Are you hearing what I'm saying?

And do you say God told them to eliminate the Nazi's?

What I was referring to was eliminating a specific person or leader. Not civilians.


What lesser of two evils? It doesn't answer the question of why the earth had to be flooded then but not at later times (or earlier times).

NJK, is killing part of God's character?

"but"
Maybe that's what you're looking for. As in some say, God is a god of love but (which means, negate everything I just said), but He is a god of hate, too.

"But", what does it say. It says He will by no means clear the guilty. What does that mean? It doesn't say He will kill them. Just not clear them. Next sentence:
To me, that means not clearing them means not sanctioning them. If He doesn't sanction them, it doesn't mean He has to kill them.

Talk about suppressing LOL!!! The war was about brute strength??? I don't think so.