The "it" here refers to sin, I take it? So when the angel said, "there is no sin," he didn't mean it literally, but was meaning to communicate that this is not a sin which results in guilt, although it would still result in death. Have I understood your thought correctly?



This looks like you're saying the same thing as my summary above, so I think I did understand you correctly.

When I've been talking about sin being lethal, I've been talking about the second death. Have you had this idea in mind as well? If not, then we've been talking past each other to some extent.

It was literal, but in a legal sense. Sin was not imputed to the perpetrator, so imputed righteousness is not required. However, imparted righteousness is lacking, and needs to be supplied.


If you're talking about sin being inherently hurtful, I believe that. Sin is hurtful, no matter what we ignorant sinners think or feel about it.


Here is where your assertions get muddy. You say sin is "2nd death" lethal. From other discussions, I think you believe that God is not the one that causes the 2nd death, but sin does. Correct?

But now, you bring up the "no light, no sin" concept. How does lack of light protect one against the 2nd death that sin causes? Is darkness that powerful that it can protect us from the wages of sin?

And this will impact your position on human understanding being required in order to obey/disobey. Can human ignorance really keep us safe from the negative consequences of that which God says we should not do?

On top of all this, consider the 1st human sin in history. What is it that made the fruit lethal? Was there something wrong with the fruit? Or was it something else that made it lethal?

The context has nothing legal about it. Ellen White was worried about displeasing God, because they weren't keeping the Sabbath correctly. The angel explained that God was not displeased because they didn't know any better. The context bears this out. There's no legal discussion going on.

I notice those with a legal paradigm see a legal issue everywhere. The lesson brought this up. John 3:16 is seen as an answer to a legal problem. John 1:29. All sorts of verses, even though John explains the framework for his understanding of the Gospel, which isn't legal at all.



I can't think of a single forensic statement in John, yet many of his Gospel statements are taken that way. Why? Not because there is anything that John has that suggests this, but the reader has a paradigm which causes him to perceive John's writings in that way.

I'm simply giving this as another example.



What the Spirit of Prophesy says is that the death (second death) of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, but the result of the choice of the wicked, the inevitable result of sin, something which would have happened to Satan in the beginning had God "left" him to perish.



If the death that sin causes involves the conscience, then that's how.



Have you read Ty Gibson's books? Specifically "See With New Eyes" or "Shades of Grace"? I'm mentioning this because he describes the principles I'm talking about, and does so very well. At any rate, darkness doesn't protect against anything, but, as the angel said, if there is no light, there is no sin, no condemnation, no frown of God.

At the judgment, God reveals Himself to each sinner. Those who have rejected the healing work of the Spirit of God will not be able to bear this revelation, because simultaneous to the revelation of God is the revelation of self; God's goodness makes clear our badness. Our badness primarily involves willful choices; it is this which works against the conscience.



I think this is a misleading way of framing the issue. If there is no light, then there is no sin, condemnation, nor frown of God. If there is no condemnation, why would a person die?



Satan misrepresented God's character, which deception led the first humans into rebellion. Rebellion is separation from God, which is lethal:

"The context has nothing legal about it" and "There's no legal discussion going on" except what you wrote in between those two assertions describes the legal issue. It is impute vs impart.


If there was no conscience, there would be no death? True?


I haven't read those books. Maybe I'll come across them one of these days.

Anyway, if there's no "frown of God" there's no problem? True?


Unknown sin is benign? If one didn't know that adultery was condemned by God, he could continue to indulge in it without any negative consequences? True?


I thought it was the sin itself that was bad? Adultery, for example, is inherently bad, no matter what you do or don't know. That's what I believe.


What does the fruit have to do with that? I understand that rebelling is bad. But why did eating the fruit kill them? What was wrong with the fruit?

I think this is just illustrating my point about one's paradigm causing one to see things in a certain way. I don't think either Ellen White or the angel were thinking of things forensic.



Without a conscience, I think we would be discussing beings like animals, who are unable to make moral choices. If God had only creating beings like this, there would be no death.



No, I wouldn't put it that way. A sin of ignorance is still a problem, as you pointed out.



No, not true. I didn't suggest this to be the case. I agree with the comments you made regarding sins of ignorance, provided "lethal" were replaced with "harmful," as I was speaking of lethality in the context of the second death.



Yes, I've made this same point. By the way, this begs a question. Assuming that sin is lethal, of itself, why would God need to pronounce a sentence against those who do it, and execute them? I'm not quite sure where you stand on this; I'm not trying to misrepresent your thoughts here. Assuming sin is lethal, then pronouncing sentence against those who do it would be like giving the penalty of capital punishment for those who would commit suicide, wouldn't it? Are we on the same page regarding this?



As I explained:



The believing a lie about God's character, leading to distrust of God and rebellion was what was lethal. The fruit was not poisonous.

One's paradigm also serves to NOT see things a certain way, as illustrated here.

If we're not talking about forensic things, then you and I are both wrong because the sin itself is not inherently hurtful. It is the "light" which carries the potential for harm. If there was no light, there would be no harm. That is, if your interpretation is correct. But I don't think it is.

When a creature with a human nature is born, does it have a conscience?

So, exactly what kind of "sin" is it NOT, according to the angel? How does it harm, yet avoid being sin? Just temporal harm?

If one sincerely believes that adultery is fine, even desirable, and his wives all agree, does the mean that adultery is not eternally lethal for them?


That's right. Killing one who separates himself from life is redundant. If left to run its course, sinners will eventually die.

However, God has the power to delay or hasten the inevitable, to suit His schedule.

And while the sinner lives, he is still dead in trespasses and sins. Physical death would be a respite.

Teresaq, I am reposting this post in case it was overlooked:


There comes a time, a point, when "defective, but loved and wanted" doesn't cut it anymore. Eventually people have to die to sin and awake to righteousness. They cannot continue to indulge our defects and imperfections, irrespective of God's offer to empower them to overcome them, without grieving the Holy Spirit, without passing the point of no return, without incurring the wrath of God.

You're right, though, some people do not experience episodes of high energy happiness as they progress from one stage of perfection to another. "This sanctification is a progressive work, and an advance from one stage of perfection to another." {ML 250.4} Listen:

Sanctification is not the work of a moment, an hour, a day, but of a lifetime. It is not gained by a happy flight of feeling, but is the result of constantly dying to sin, and constantly living for Christ. Wrongs cannot be righted nor reformations wrought in the character by feeble, intermittent efforts. It is only by long, persevering effort, sore discipline, and stern conflict, that we shall overcome. {FLB 116.5}

The children of God may rejoice in all things and at all times. When troubles and difficulties come, believing in the wise providence of God, you may rejoice. You need not wait for a happy flight of feeling, but by faith you may lay hold of the promises and lift up a hymn of thanksgiving to God. {HP 123.2}

I find that I have to fight the good fight of faith every day. I have to exercise all my faith, and not rely upon feeling; I have to act as though I knew the Lord heard me, and would answer me and bless me. Faith is not a happy flight of feeling; it is simply taking God at His word--believing that He will fulfill His promises because He said He would. {OHC 119.5}

I saw that the christian should not set too high a value, nor depend too much upon a happy flight of feeling. These feelings are not always true. I saw that it should be the study of every christian to serve God from principle, and not be ruled by feeling. By so doing, faith will be brought into exercise, and will increase. {2SG 261.1}


Because God requires perfection of character. No one will be saved without it. Satan know this and he works tirelessly to deceive us - "if possible even the very elect" will be deceived. No one will be able to endure the time of Jacob's trouble unless they are convinced they are blameless in the sight of God. Therefore, it is important to know we are right with God. Listen:

Arnold, I am reposting this post since it appears it was overlooked:


Yes, it is true the 144,000 will pass through this experience. But this is a unique experience. It doesn't reflect what life is supposed to be like now or afterward. If so, none could endure it long enough to hold out until death or until Jesus returns. We're not to go around like that poor wretched soul in Pilgrim's Progress lamenting our wicked past. Nor are we to go around lamenting our wicked potential. While abiding in Jesus it is our privilege to revel in the joy of Jesus. Again, while abiding in Jesus, that is, while abiding in Jesus.


Why, then, does it say, "the fine linen is the righteousness of saints"?


Not Christ outside of us, but Christ in us, the hope of glory. The work of salvation is not a superficial work. It is a total recreation. Listen:

Everyone who by faith obeys God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. {HP 146.5} NOTE: Adam's righteousness did require mediation or filtration.

Those only who through faith in Christ obey all of God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression. They testify to their love of Christ by obeying all His precepts. {6BC 1118.10}

The only condition upon which the freedom of man is possible is that of becoming one with Christ. "The truth shall make you free;" and Christ is the truth. Sin can triumph only by enfeebling the mind, and destroying the liberty of the soul. Subjection to God is restoration to one's self,--to the true glory and dignity of man. The divine law, to which we are brought into subjection, is "the law of liberty." James 2:12. {DA 466.5}

---

One of the things God must do to win the great controversy is produce 144,000 sinners turned saints who stand before the Universe without spot or blame. He cannot win the GC by simply covering sinners who are full of spots and blame with the robe of Christ's righteousness. If this were possible He would have done it a long time ago with A&E and ended the GC then and there. True, people need the robe of Christ's righteousness to cover their past pardoned sins, but they also need to be free of sin, not only in the legal sense, but also in the real sense.