R: God's hatred for sin is His glory which consumes sin.
T: From DA 108: <<The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.>>


???
Why single out this one aspect of God's character? Let's choose another one. God is merciful. So one could say that the revelation of His character, including His being merciful, both gives life to the righteous and slays the wicked.



The conclusion is complete logical. It's only unwarranted if logical conclusions are unwarranted. If hatred for sin is what makes our having a Mediator necessary, then it doesn't matter who has that hatred of sin. One doesn't have to be the Creator to hate sin.



Let's consider the following quote again:



Why could the wicked not abide Christ's presence? Because He was good. His presence revealed their sin.



This is a completely circular argument. You say:



This is what you would need to prove. You're just asserting it. Then you conclude:



You're just concluding what you asserted. That's not a valid argument.

You say if God loved sin, then man would be comfortable in His presence. If God loved sin, then God would not be good. God hates sin, because He is love, because He is good. God's goodness leads us to repentance, but if we refuse to repent, we do not feel comfortable in His presence, because His goodness draws attention to our sin.

The fundamental problem is our sin! Not God's hatred of our sin, but our sin itself.

Richard, you said:



I don't disagree that Christ shrouded His glory by taking flesh. I'm pointing out that your statement that "sin is the anti-matter to God's matter, they cannot coexist, Christ became flesh so He could reach man with shielded divinity." has a logical problem, which is that it implies that Christ ceased to be God when He took flesh. You say:

1.Sin is the anti-matter to Gods matter, they cannot coexist.

Now if we agree that:

2.Christ is God.

Then we would have to agree that no one could coexist with Christ. But sinners did coexist with Christ. So your original statement would have to be something like "God, His glory not being veiled, and sin cannot coexist."

Here's a statement from the SOP:



I think this is the right way of looking at the issue. Sin causes the wicked to damage their character, so that His presence becomes undesirable, so much so that "their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves."

We need to understand that the fundamental problem is sin. Sin, untreated, ruins us, so that we cannot bear God's presence. We need to be healed of it.

The Bible says God is a consuming fire. And of course He is a consuming fire to sin. Which is the aspect of His character that consumes sin? His mercy? In a sense yes, because all His attributes are interrelated, and are present in everything that He does. But, primarily, what consumes sin is His hatred for sin, His holiness. This attribute consumed sin in the lives of the righteous, with their consent, making them live; and this attribute will consume sin in the lives of the wicked, without their consent, making them die.


No, it’s not completely logical, because we are discussing a Mediator in the salvific sense – angels, Enoch and Elijah, and other creatures, have nothing to do with anyone’s salvation.


He was good = He hated sin. Do you know any good person who loves sin? Both expressions mean the same thing, for sin is the antithesis of goodness.


Do I really need to prove that Adam fled from God’s presence because God hates sin? This, to me, is obvious. What is the reason why he fled from God’s presence, in your opinion?


So? The truth remains that our sin is a problem just because God is good and hates sin.

Holiness is not "hatred for sin." Holiness is simply goodness. To say that God is holy is to say that He is good.



This brings out the principle I've trying to get across pretty well. God is love, and because He is love, He does good, and nothing but good. Love bears fruity to holiness. Therefore God is holy, or good, because He is love.

This is from "Shade of Grace" a book by Ty Gibson:

The ancient Hebrews people considered all the Old Testament to be holy. But there was one book they regrded as more sacred than all the others. They referred to this book as the "Most Holy Place" of Scripture ...

The one book regarded as Most Holy was not Genesis, with its glorious account of Creation. Nor was it Exodus, with its record of God's holy law. Nor Leviticus, .... (nor) any of the ... prophetic books ... such as Daniel or Isaiah.

The Most Holy portion of Scripture for the ancient Jews was the Song of Solomon....

God is a person, the most largehearted, sensitive Person in all the universe. And ultimately what He desires is heart-to-heart intimacy with you and me.

When we remember this, then it makes perfect sense that the Song of Solomon very well could be the Most Holy Place of Scripture, for this love poem portrays the most intimate human relationship we experience. .... (T)he fact that it is included as a part of God's Holy Word indicates at least two things: ...

2.Such love symbolically communicates God's desire ofr an intimate spiritual relationship with each of His children...

(R)eading some Bible versions, such as the King James, leaves the impression that the Song of Solomon makes no mention at all of God, and therefore has no spiritual value.

Not true....

First notice the King James Version. Try to pick out the word that should have been translated "God":



The word here translated "vehement" is the Hebrew word "Yahh" of "Jah," which is the name of God...



Then Solomon draws a parallel between love and fire. Not just fire as such, but the very fire of God Himself. The characteristic of fire which Solomon has in mind is brought out in the next verse: "Many waters cannot quench love." He wants us to understand that God's love is like an unquenchable fire.

But why fire? (quotes various verses, including "Our God is a consuming fire)

We are not to conclude from such texts that God is composed in nature of literal fire. But rather, as Moses said, His glory is "like devouring fire ... in the eyes" of human beings. God's low is fiery; His glory is like a devouring fire; and His love is like an unquenchable fire. In what sense? In that the righteousness of God's character of love stands in distinct contrast to our sinful selfishness.... To sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire by virtue of who and what He is in character....

I thought this was interesting, so I included a good chunk of it. Anyway, here's the conclusion I wanted to get to:



It is the revelation of God's character of love which will either give life to the righteous or slay the wicked. This, of course, includes His hatred of sin, but two points:

1.It includes every other aspect of His character as well.
2.God hates sin precisely because of His character of love.

God hates sin because sin destroys us, and He loves us. But there is no reason to single this aspect as a reason for our needing a Mediator. Without considering God's hatred for sin at all, it should be readily seen that we need a Mediator!

Your point about "salvific" is irrelevant to the argument. The assertion was made that it is God's hatred for sin which necessitates our having a Mediator.

The logic of the argument is that if it is "hatred for sin" that necessitates a Mediator, then it doesn't matter who has that hatred of sin. So the hatred of sin of any being, God or not, would require a Mediator (in the sense of the original assertion) as well. You're concluding it's "not completely logical" when you haven't even considered either the argument or the logic!



That God is good is the point. God hates sin *because* He is good. The problem is not specifically God's hatred of sin, but His goodness. Our sin makes it so we cannot not abide His presence, because of His goodness. There is no need, and, indeed, it's distracting/misleading, to single out God's hatred of sin as being the reason for our need of a Mediator.



No, they don't mean the same thing! "God is good" encompasses far more than "God hates sin." The hatred of sin is just one of thousands of aspects of God's goodness. By your argument, one could just as well argue that "God is good" means the same thing as saying "God is merciful," (or any other aspect of God's character) and we could use the same argument applied to God's hatred of sin to God's mercy, and argue that it is God's mercy which necessitates our having a Mediator.



Yes.

Adam and Eve fled because they were afraid and ashamed. They were ashamed because of their nakedness. The whole story brings out their guilt and shame, which sin awakened in them. There is no indication whatsoever in the story in Genesis that God was angry at them. To the contrary, His voice calmed them to the point to where the lost their fear enough to present themselves to God and talk to Him.



Answered, in brief, above.



Close! "The truth remains that our sin is a problem just because God is good." That's sufficient.

Holiness is purity, absence of sin. To say that God is holy is to say that He is absolutely free from sin and that He abhors sin.

“He [God] cannot endure the presence of sin. It is the thing that his soul hates. Even the angels that stood about his throne, whom he loved, but who kept not their first estate of loyalty, God cast out of heaven with their rebel leader. Holiness is the foundation of God's throne; sin is the opposite of holiness.” {SpTA01a 4.1}

“And He [Christ] suffered in proportion to the perfection of His holiness and His hatred of sin.” {DA 700.3}

“God is infinitely holy, and he hates every species of iniquity.” {YI, March 28, 1905 par. 8}

“To your every word and action you have a witness,--the holy, sin-hating God.” {YI, May 26, 1898 par. 8}



Yes, there is. As the first quote above says, God cannot endure the presence of sin. As the lesson says, quoting the Bible, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong” (Hab. 1:13). That’s one of the reasons why there is the need of a Mediator. That's one of the reasons why the righteousness of the Mediator must cover our sins – this is what imputed righteousness is all about. In fact, as I have pointed out several times, imputed righteousness makes no sense under your view.

“God is approached through Jesus Christ, the Mediator, the only way through which He forgives sins. God cannot forgive sins at the expense of His justice, His holiness, and His truth.” {7BC 912.9}


Irrelevant? It’s fundamental to the subject. We are speaking of mediation in the context of salvation.


As I said, we cannot separate the attributes of God. God cannot tolerate the presence of sin because He is holy, because He is good, because He is just, because He is merciful, etc. But the most important aspect here is that a Mediator is necessary because God cannot tolerate sin in His presence. A Mediator was necessary in order to lead sinners away from sin and back to holiness.


Why were they afraid and ashamed? Because they knew the character of God, and knew that now they were in disharmony with it.


Who said this? The thought that God was angry at them never crossed my mind. When I sin today I’m also ashamed, not because I think God is angry at me, but because I did something that is so offensive to His nature, and makes Him suffer so much.

"Goodness" works here just as well. Goodness is purity, absence of sin. To say that God is good is to say that He is absolutely free from sin and that He abhors sin.



The lesson author took Habakkuk out of context. The last thing Habakkuk is doing is arguing for Reformist atonement theology. Here's what Habakkuk said:



Habukkuk is asking God why He doesn't do something about the injustice that's happening. To use Hab. 1:13 to argue that God's hatred for sin necessitates Christ's being our Mediator is egregiously taking what he said out of context.

It's pointless to cite quotations to establish that God hates sin. Of course God hates sin. The question is if it is the fact that God hates sin that necessitates our having a Mediator.



Only if one understands "imputed righteousness" in a penal way. Your right that a penal understanding of "imputed righteousness" doesn't make sense in a non-penal understanding of the atonement.





The first quote brings out that we are transformed into Christ's image by receiving the imputed righteousness of Christ. The second doesn't used the phrase "imputed righteousness," but speaks of being clothed with Christ's righteousness, which is the same theme.

Here's an explanation of the theme by E. J. Waggoner:



We're getting a bit off topic here, but since you brought up "imputed righteousness," I decided to comment. But a more thorough discussion would probably merit a thread of its own.



In what way does this imply that God's hatred for sin necessitates our having a Mediator?



The point was made that it is God's hatred of sin which makes necessary our needing a Mediator. I pointed out that if it is hatred for sin that makes necessary our needing a Mediator, then that hatred for sin would make it necessary regardless of the one who has the hatred for sin. If you want to limit the scope of the necessity for a Mediator, you're free to do so, but that in no way impacts the argument I presented, which is why the need for a Mediator being "salvific" is irrelevant; i.e. it's irrelevant to my argument. The same argument presents itself if you limit the scope, or if you don't.



I agree with this. Given this is the case, it doesn't really make sense to attempt to isolate one of them and assert that His hatred for sin necessitates our having a Mediator.



First of all, this isn't the question under consideration. The question under consideration is if it's God's hatred for sin which necessitates our having a Mediator. You are suggesting that it is because God cannot tolerate sin in His presence. Hating something and not tolerating something are, or can be, related, but are not of necessity so, and are certainly not identical things. One could hate something and still tolerate its presence, and, conversely, one could not tolerate the presence of something without hating it.

Secondly, if you are going to assert something like this, it would be good to present some evidence that this is so. Why is this the most important thing? Why couldn't the most important thing be something else? Like, for example, that sin causes us to be unable to endure God's presence?



This is what I've been saying. I agree 100% with this.



In this case the problem was with Adam and Eve, which I agree with. Sin damaged them, so that they no longer desired God's company.

Let's go back to the original statement of the author, which is that it was God's hatred for sin which necessitated our having a Mediator. I haven't seen any evidence presented for this idea. Does any author in Scripture present this argument? If so, who and where? How about Jesus Christ? Did He ever teach this idea? In a number of places, particular in the Gospel of John, Jesus presents the idea that we can only come to God through Him (He is the door, the gate, the way, etc.) Does He ever suggest that God's hatred of sin is the reason this is so?

I will probably be cutting down my posts until after my sermon on 10/25. But I will be reading your discussion in the meantime, since Genesis 3 is the core of my sermon.

Ty Gibson has some great thoughts on Gen. 3 in his book "See With New Eyes".



This is a little snippet. This isn't online, so I can't copy and paste it in. However, I would be happy to type it in, if you were interested. However, I'm reticent to do so if you're not. So please let me know.

Also A. T. Jones spoke on Gen. 3 in one of his sermons at either the 1893 or 1895 GCB, I don't remember which, maybe the 1895 one. Jones didn't go into as much detail, but dealt with the depravity aspect of the fall. Ty Gibson goes more into the dynamics of what happened.

I am interested. Your quote addresses an aspect that I hope to cover.

As I said elsewhere, sin is incongruence with God's character. That involves a lot more than behavior.