Regarding #108530, isn't it clear this is not an issue of the flesh? Moses was able to see God's glory without being burned up. He had sinful flesh. The Israelites couldn't even bear the reflected glory of Moses' face. Why? Because of their flesh? No, because they had the same flesh Moses had.



No, there's no implication that Adam and Eve had to fall. This is an invalid inference. Had Adam and Eve not fallen, Satan would not have been the prince of this world. The issue of the GC would have remained, but the means of fighting the battle would have been completely different.



I don't follow this. This point would attach as much to your view as mine.



No it doesn't. I addressed this. Several time, in fact. I pointed out that a certain amount of freedom is necessary in order for Satan to be able to make his case. The only way God could prevent anyone from being harmed would be to prevent all sin, which He could only do by curtailing free will.



Surely God could grow the saints spiritually without Satan's help. This can't be the only reason, or even the principle one.

so far there "is a sense" in which one could easily agree with the statements above - though I think they fall far short of taking in the full scope of the issue of Law.

God "MADE HIS LAW" equal to Himself! This was a strategic move on His part that prevented Him from simply "bending rules" when it pleased Him.

In The Garden of Gethsemane Christ asks that if it be possible - let this cup pass from Me -- never-the-less not My will but THY will be done.

IF ever there was a case for God "having a motive" to bend the law - it was when His own Son asked for some other solution other than the law-upholding solution that would require the separation of Christ from the Father AND it would require the exact amount of torment and suffering debt owed by all sins of all mankind in all of time be placed upon Christ so that He might "nail our Certificate of Debt to the cross" Col 2:14-15.



At this point the author of the article completely falls off the horse.

1. At the fall -- mankind took upon himself a new sinFUL nature. Depravity.

2. Romans 3 describes that depravity as "there is NO ONE who SEEKS after God - NO not ONE"! The fall of man was into a depraved state that only SUPERNATURAL forces could override.

3. In Gen 3 - God provides a supernatural force -- "I will put emnity between the see of the woman and the seed of the serpent". It is only by the supernatural acts of God that mankind is even aware of his sin and guilt.

John 16 -- the Holy Spirit is sent to "convict the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

Man's depraved sinful nature would not do it. Man of himself would not even seek after God at all.



Here again the author is simply floundering. Probably as a result of having missed the previous point.

God's choices were;

1. an instant death for Lucifer and then for any angel that followed, and then for anyone of his created beings - planets - intelligences that dare to follow - (and the fear based system that would have created)

2. OR to revoke free will - Tweaking the mind of Lucifer and any other being that just so happened to have a stray thought cycle leaning toward rebellion -- tweaked before they would even know that something was amiss.

3. OR to allow sin and suffering to continue while also allow the DEBT of suffering and pain OWED for that continued sin to pile up - to continue. With the benefit of sealing off the problem of sin forever in the context of a free will universe -- but at the price of much sin, much suffering and then much suffering-debt owed and payed in the fires of HELL AND ALSO paid by Christ on the Cross! By one EQUAL to the LAW.

He chose to continue with the free will experiment - and he chose not to go down the system-of-fear instant-death with least pain punishment and suffering solution.

The author simply has not taken the time to consider all the variables.



It is incleaer that even one of these texts is speaking to the result of sin being "death apart from God" which is to say - apart from the 2nd death. Indeed if we look at Romans 6 it is very clear that the death spoken of is NOT suffered by the saints which means it can only refer to the 2nd death - the lake of fire - manufactured and orchestrated death with all the Rev 14:10-11 "tormented with fire and brimstone" suffering that it involves.

We see that again in Romans 2 where the wicked get the punishment of death and the righteous get "eternal life" by contrast. yet we know that in this world - "all die".

Clearly then the text speaks to the supernatural -- contrived - completely manufactured event of the 2nd death that STARTS with the supernatural act of Resurrection SO THAT the wicked CAN be in a living state in which to suffer the suffering and pain of the 2nd death.



This again is false - because of missing the first point above. No amount of Holiness is going to give the lost person "eternal life". With their sinful depraved nature and their deeds of sin - they are already doomed to the 2nd death. The longer they live in sin - the more sin and suffering "debt" they accumulate. Ten years of sinless living (as if that was possible for them) does not erase the debt of 1 year of sin.

The Law of God would demand that the "wages of sin be paid" -



That much is true. Rather The Law says "IF YOU SIN AT ALL - you must die" -- because the wages of sin -- even one sin -- is death.



This is true - but only in context of the Gospel that provides BOTH forgiveness of sins committed AND CLEANSING from all unrighteousness so that you no longer HAVE to sin. No longer SLAVES to sin.



While much of this is true - it misses the point that God drove man FROM the Garden of Eden - man begged to stay. As Ellen White points out -- Adam and Eve swore that they would never transgress again -- and begged to remain in fellowship with God - and inside the Garden of Paradise.

Man's fallen condition dictated that his direct communication with God no longer be avaiable. But some means was opened up so that through the ministry of Angels, through the saving work of God the Son - a means of communion would be preserved though vastly reduced from the direct contact with God that man had in Eden.



Not even close.

The convicting work of the Holy Spirit - the work of Christ in supernaturally "Drawing ALL unto Me" John 12:32 - ENABLES the depraved soul to choose life. The love of God demonstrated at the cross then convinces the lost sinner that "God is Love" and also that that warning about a real 2nd death punishment for sin is every bit as real as the supernatural unseen torment and suffering endured by Christ at the cross.

It is BOTH justice AND mercy seen together. It shows the REAL fact of the 2nd death AND it shows the REAL fact of God's great love.



Here the author apparently summarizes one flawed alternative to his own solution. We can agree with some of the flaws in the points listed above -- but I can not agree that this is really the only alternative to the mistaken conclusion that the author of this article leaps to embrace.



I will refrain from beating on the flawed straw man that was drawn up since I think there is another solution that also not quite the author's solution.



Agreed.



AND one more party -- the UNFALLEN FREE WILL Intelligent Creation that are ALSO under security of that SAME unbreakable LAW of God that is EQUAL to Himself.

(Much of that point seems to have gone unnoticed by the author for some reason).



Hmmm -- how nice if Isaiah 53 or 2Cor 5 had been included in the author's solution. Had they been included we might have had something that would stand up to the test of scripture.




"tormenting psychological agony" is not the kind of scriptural term we expect to find in the Bible.



Here again - the author misses the boat almost entirely.

In the Roman Catholic view - it is the "passion of the Christ" his suffering at the hands of Romans that "pays our debt" of sin.

But in the actual Bible that is not the case. Christ could easily have died in the Garden of Gethsemane paying the complete debt of sin and simply dying before the mob ever arrived.

The outward external view of Romans soldiers torturing Christ - is merely to give a tiny glimpse into the much greater - supernatural agony sufferred by Christ who was Himself taking on the EXACT amount of torment and suffering owed for EACH sin committed by EACH sinner in all of time -- accumulated and then supernaturally placed upon Christ.

Notice that the "wages of sin is not torment by Romans". The wages of sin Rev 20 is not "torture by Roman guards" NOR is it crucifixion on a tree. It is "torment and suffering" in the lake of fire and brimstone where "Those who knew their masters will AND yet did deeds worthy of flogging will receive MANY lashes" Luke 12:46-48

in Christ,

Bob

or perhaps the author of this quote hasnt, would that be a possiblity?




which "law" would that be? i only know of the 10 commandments and i have yet to read that in them.

is there another "law" you know about?

The one mentioned in Roman 3 that states that the law places all the world under condemnation - that every mouth should be closed -- everyone condemned for there is "no one who seeks after God -- no not one".

The one in Gal 3 that says that there is no salvation at all under the law and that as many as are under the law are under a curse - for all have sinned.

The one in Romans 6 that says that the wages of sin "yes even one sin" is death. (the 2nd death -- since by contrast the gift of God is eternal life).

The one in Luke 12:46-48 where Christ informs us that the "one who knew his masters will and yet did deeds worthy of flogging will receive many stripes" - showing magnitude of payment due for sins is also in the context of the knowledge of the person.

The one in Is 53 telling us that Christ took the stripes of suffering "FOR US to whom the Stroke was DUE".

In Matt 5-7 we are told by Christ that the 10 Commandment scope extends even to thought-sins.

in Christ,

Bob

How so?

in Christ,

Bob

Regarding #108688, thanks for taking the time to write such a well thought out post! It looks like we are thinking of things very differently, which is fine, as the care you've taken in laying out your thoughts makes it easy to carry on a dialog. Perhaps we can learn from each other's ideas.

As this is quite a long post, I'll respond it pieces.



This doesn't make sense to me. I see the law as a transcript of God's character, which is simply a description of the way God is. It exists for our benefit, His creatures. It has no impact on Him. With or without the existence of the law, He would do nothing any differently, as the law is simply a description of God's character, and character is what it is. To summarize God's character in a word, it is agape. Agape acts in a certain way, and that way is described by God's law.



This is agape. Agape acts according to the principle of self-sacrificing love. "Not my will but THY will be done" is a description of agape.



The primary problem was not the law, but the salvation of the lost and the vindication of God's throne. Without the law, Christ still would have had to die. The death of Christ exposed or unmasked the enemy, and thus destroyed his kingdom. It also exposed God, so to speak, in that it revealed His love, goodness and character to heights which had never been seen before. Even the onlooking universe was amazed.

If it were simply a matter of law, God could have avoided the law altogether but not bringing it into existence. There's surely something wrong with a law if it requires an innocent person to die a hideous death which would have been absolutely unnecessary had that law not existed.

You've suggested God created the law as a strategic move on His part that prevented Him from simply "bending rules" when it pleased Him. What rules? Aren't the rules you're speaking of that which is specified in the Law itself? If the rules come about as a result of the Law, then simply not creating the Law would have prevented these rules from coming into existence.

On the other hand, if these rules are rules which existed apart from the law, and the reason for the law was to constrain God to keep these rules, this raises questions about God. Why should He need a law to prevent Him from bending rules?



On your comments here, I didn't see that they had anything at all to do with what Ty wrote. That is, you seemed to me to be addressing an issue Ty wasn't raising. Of course because of man's sinful nature, he cannot overcome sin without divine help, and of course Ty knows this and believe this to be the case. I don't see what Ty could have written to have given you a different impression.



The previous point is that has a sinful nature and needs divine help. Again, of course Ty is well aware of this. His point here is that punishment is organic to sin itself, which, as far as I can see, has nothing whatever to do with the fact that man has a sinful nature, which, again, is something Ty is well aware of. So I'm not following your train of thought here. Either that or I've misunderstood your point.



Agree. I'm sure Ty agrees with this too.



which is of course unthinkable, given God's character



Well this is the point of contention. Ty is arguing against this perspective.



No, it's not the case that the author has not taken the time to consider the variables you are suggesting, but that he is arguing against the perspective you are suggesting. This is his point in bringing out that punishment for sin is not something arbitrarily imposed by God, but is organic to the sin itself.



Of course these texts are dealing with the second death. Ty is arguing that the second death is not something arbitrarily imposed by God, but the result of sin. That Ty is speaking of the second death is clear by the context. He's talking about the judgment. Notice His reference that "if we don’t repent of our sins God will kill us." This is referring to the judgment, where this is indeed what many think. When a person dies in his sleep, nobody conceives this as God's killing him. On the other hand, many believe that God will kill the wicked in the judgment with literal fire.



The author is speaking of the second death all along, and is making the argument that the death is not manufactured, but is the consequence of sin. The texts he cited were all for the purpose of making this point; that is, that the second death is the consequence of sin. For example, he cites James 1:15, which says that sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. As Waggoner put it, sin has death wrapped up in it, or, as EGW put it, death is the inevitable result of sin.

To be clear, the whole question involves whether or not this death is arbitrary, or manufactured, to use your term, or if it is organic, to use Ty's.

(More later)

He's not saying that it does.



This is looking at the issue as an economic-lie issue rather than one of character. It is a person's character which determines his destiny.



Where does the law demand death?



This seems like the same thing. Given that God made the law, if God says, "If you break this law, you must die," and this death is manufactured by God, then God is threatening "If you keep sinning, I will kill you." That's exactly what you're doing.

When Scripture says the wages of sin is death, that means that sin pays its wages, which is death. In other words, the result of sin is death, or, as James puts it, when sin is finished, it brings forth death.

The whole issue that Ty is addressing is whether the death which comes as a result of sin is manufactured, or organic. You can't rebut Ty's arguments by simply asserting that it's manufactured.



As opposed to what other context?



What's the connection between what you're saying and what Ty said? You keep saying that Ty is missing things, but when you point out what he's missing, I don't see any connection between what he said and what you're saying he's missing. For example here, why are you talking about A&E leaving Eden?



I think this is right on! In 2 Cor. 5:14, 15 we read:



which looks to be exactly what Ty stated. Here's another that comes to mind:



(More later)

I think the "some reason" may be that what's being unnoticed is not on the part of the author, but the reader. When Ty says the third party is made to suffer, he's not saying against His will. This is a conclusion you jumped to. Ty didn't say anything to suggest this.

The "made to suffer" is not in the sense of "made to suffer against His will" but in the sense of something which needed to be done, which is the same thing you're saying.

Ty's argument is that the correct paradigm is a two-party system, not a three party one. There is the sinner, and God. God provides the atonement that reconciles the sinner to Himself.



What's wrong with the Scriptures that were cited? Don't they speak to the subject?



Why not? The only reason I can think of is because English is a differently language than Hebrew or Greek. If one reads the accounts of the Psalms, or EGW's descriptions in "Calvary" of "The Desire of Ages," "tormenting psychological agony" seems very accurate.



How is what Ty said (i.e. his description of the position against which he was arguing) any different than what you said? He didn't say anything about "torment by Romans." He said, "o, if we mean He acted as an arbitrary source of pain and death, as the tormentor and executioner of His Son." This is speaking of God, which is the same thing you're saying it seems to me.

You speak of "supernatural agony" and that Christ suffered the exact amount of "torment and suffering" that the wicked will suffer at the end of time. How did Christ suffer this, if not by God's hand?

Also when you say the exact amount of each sinner committed for all time, you have the idea that God looked into the future, saw how much collective sin there was, and measured it, and allocated exactly that amount of "torment and suffering" to Christ?

You believe the wicked's "suffer and torment" is manufactured by God, so wouldn't Christ's "suffer and torment" have had to have been manufactured by God as well?

Also, how do you see this as possible. We know the wicked will suffer for many hours or many days. Let's say 1/2 day on the average. How many wicked are there in the judgment? Who knows, but let's guess 10 billion. That comes to 5 billion days of torment and suffering for Christ, which is somewhat over 10 million years of manufactured torment and suffering due to literal fire. It's hard to see how Christ suffered this.

Here's a quote from the link you posted above:


The author above seems to be of the opinion that "justice" is mercy, justification, forgiveness, unmerited favor. However, Ellen makes the following observations:


In the passage above Ellen clearly contrasts mercy and justice. "Mercy does not set aside justice . . . [and] justice did not destroy His mercy". Jesus' death on the cross satisfied justice. She does not view them as synonymous aspects of salvation. Elsewhere she wrote, "The penalty for the least transgression of that law is death, and but for Christ, the sinner's Advocate, it would be summarily visited on every offender. Justice and mercy are blended." {TDG 246.1} "Were there no justice, no penalty, there would be no stability to the government of God. It is the mingling of judgment and mercy that makes salvation complete." {Mar 326.2}

She also severely contrasts mercy and justice in the context of judgment in the following passages:


The following insight is curious:


The following counsel is good to end on (again, mercy and justice are contrasted):

In conversation with others dwell upon the mercy, goodness, and love of God instead of upon His strict judgment and justice. {4T 259}

The author was discussing justice in Scripture, not in Ellen White, so it makes no sense to quote Ellen White in reference to what the author was writing.

Here's something I've quoted a number of times:



We've discussed at length the question of what "justice demands" is. I'm suggesting that it means what Fifield is suggesting. You're suggesting a different meaning, which doesn't work when we consider Lucifer's case. That is, Lucifer broke the law, yet God was willing to pardon him, without a debt having to be paid. Of course, we're going over old ground here.