Actually, Christ's death could very easily be taken to mean that sinlessness kills. He didn't exactly demonstrate that sin kills the sinner, since He was not a sinner.

"But," you say, "He took upon Himself all of our sins. More than that, He was made to be sin for us."

How do we know that? How does the universe know that? Because God said so. But it's not wise to accept the defendant's witness without 3rd-party corroboration. What 3rd-party evidence do we have that sin killed Jesus (who had no sin)?

I've said several times that the inevitable result of sin is death, and that when I said "sin 'itself' does not result in death" the context was that it appeared to me that MM was referring to sin as if it were a sentient being, and I was explaining that I did not have this meaning in mind. I'm not sure why you're thinking that the explanation of these ideas does not give you enough information to answer your question.



One who is born again, who chooses not to voluntarily sin at all, lives forever, so this idea must be qualified.



The virus analogy was in terms of explaining that sin was like a parasite, wasn't it? A fundamental principle of analogies, or parables, is that they have the intent of illustrating one concept. If you try to apply them to concepts they weren't intended to illustrate, they don't work well.



Again, the purpose of the virus analogy (I actually think I said "parasite") was to explain that sin does not have a life of its own. I've been arguing that death is the direct consequence of sin. I've explained this in terms of its underlying principle being selfishness, and that selfishness cannot do other than lead to suffering, misery and death.



We disagree on this point. I think a fundamental purpose of Christ's death was to demonstrate the very point that sin leads to the second death. I think this is what DA 764 was all about, and is a very important concept in relation to the Great Controversy.

Regarding Christ's not being a sinner, He was numbered as such, and is represented as having become "sin" (or "sin itself" in EGW's words) for us, which is getting at the same point as that raised in Isaiah 53, IMO.



What do you mean, "God said so"? Do you mean that God has revealed this to us by inspiration, or something else?



The cross was more than "God said so." It was a demonstration, a revelation, that answered many questions, including the one you're asking. It seems to me that DA 764 explains the answer to your question.

Arnold, there's something I'd like some clarification on, if you don't mind. You've expressed in the past an appreciation of A. G. Maxwell. You've explained this doesn't mean that you agree with everything he said. In our ongoing discussions, it has appeared to me that perhaps you don't agree with *anything* he said (in terms of his main ideas, I'm speaking about; not anything under the sun). Since I have a basic understanding of his theology, I think it would help me understand where you're coming from if you would tell me what, if anything, of A.G.M.'s principle ideas that you agree with.

Thanks!

There's no way to pin down a moving target. As soon as you think you're close, the rules are bound to change, or a smokescreen hides the object. It's all a game, I suppose.

I prefer to work with honest facts which can be laid out on unshifting, stable ground. Then when I see where some facts are incongruous, I can better decide which facts are true and which should be rejected.

If our discussion here seeks truths and facts, I'm in. If we just like the fun of the game, I'm out. Well, considering I'm supposed to help moderate this thread, I guess I cannot be fully out...but I'm not up to continuing a game of "chase your tail" (or is it dodge ball?) which has already lasted for more than 600 posts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Does this tie in with the suffering of the lost?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, regarding 121948, what I'd suggest is looking at the subject from the standpoint of the principles involved. For example, DA 764 lends itself very well to an examination of these lines. I've written out what I believe in regards to this passage several times. I'd invite your comments in regards to the principles I've commented on in that and other passages I've written at length about.

Also, you could try to summarize what you think my ideas are, and the ideas of others. I tried to do this earlier. It appears to me that our basic differences involve:

a.Whether or not sin and death (the second death) are directly related.
b.God's character.




Yes indeed! I guess, given that you've asked this question, that you're not familiar with A. G. Maxwell's ideas(?).

Basically what we think the problem is that needs to be solved ties into our ideas of the atonement and the judgment of the wicked, and the Great Controversy in general. Maxwell has said quite a lot about these themes. Arnold has expressed an appreciation, in the past, for Maxwell's idea. Understanding what specifically Arnold appreciates of Maxwell can help me understand Arnold's perspective.

But you have avoided saying what you think causes death. You are very careful to say sin cannot cause death because it is not a sentient being. This implies you believe death is the result of actions taken by a sentient being. I believe that sentient being is God. Who do you believe it is?

Sin, as you know, is not a sentient being; therefore, it cannot cause something to happen. Sinners make bad choices. Their choices result in suffering and death. However, such suffering and death is unnatural and arbitrary in that it is not the inevitable result of sin. Instead, it is the inevitable result of God supernaturally preventing the inevitable result of sin, namely, punishment ending in second death.


You have yet to explain what you think will punish and destroy the wicked. In disagreeing with me here it implies you either think sin or its results will kill the wicked. Which is it?


The closest you’ve come to explaining what you believe will kill the wicked is quoting the above passage. It implies you believe the character of God will kill the wicked. How will the character of God give life to the righteous and take life from the wicked?


Your answer here implies you believe sin will kill the wicked.


God is the source of life not obedience. Since neither obedience nor disobedience are sentient beings neither one can give or take life. Sinners are able to lives of sin because God veils the radiant firelight of His person and presence. Nevertheless, deprived access to the tree of life, the sinner succumbs to first death. Otherwise, he would “put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.”


God supernaturally prevented Jesus from dying of a broken heart. His humanity was insufficient to withstand the wrath of God. Jesus chose the moment of His death. He died the very instant God ceased preventing His death. At that precise point in time Jesus’ body collapsed and the breath of life took leave of Him. The body is not built to survive such emotional anguish. Ellen had this to say about it:

Sin.



No. *You* spoke in a way that suggested *you* were thinking of sin as if it were a sentient being, and I took issue with that.



I've been saying all along, over and over again, that death is the inevitable result of sin.



I don't agree with your reasoning here, as the following argument illustrates. The wind is not a sentient being. Therefore it cannot cause anything to happen. Therefore it cannot damage houses.



I agree with this.



I disagree with this. There are two different deaths involved here. One is spoke of as "sleep." This is caused by sin. The other is the real thing, referred to as the "second death," and it also is called by sin, and is referred to as the "inevitable result of sin." I can see how you could argue that the death referred to by Jesus as "sleep" is not "the inevitable result of sin," but this does not imply that it is arbitrary or unnatural. Also, I see no basis whatsoever for the assertion that the suffering we see in this world is not the inevitable result of sin. It's very clear to me that it is. All suffering comes from sin.



No, that's not the cause of suffering. The essence of sin is selfishness. When people put themselves first, suffering results.



I've never suggested this. This is an example of your speaking of sin as a sentient being, which I explained I disagreed with. I don't understand why you're asking me to explain something I've already disagreed with.



I've quoted DA 764 more often. I think that's the clearest passage.



They only die because of sin. This is explained in the context of the quote. The problem is sin, not God's character.



To know God is eternal life. Jesus Christ, the revealer of God's character, is the light of the glory of God. He is the life, and we receive life by receiving Him. By rejection of Christ, we choose death instead of life.



I've said that death is the inevitable result of sin. You are saying this implies that sin kills the wicked?

What I've been saying is that the essence of sin is selfishness, which is not a principle which can support life, or do other than lead to suffering and misery. The "law of life for the universe" is the principle of self-sacrificing love, which receives from the hand of God to give to others. This is the way of life.



Where do you get "firelight" from? I don't understand your use of this word. Why not simply "light"? Do you see a difference?

At any rate, you've said all this. As I've said, it seems to me your understanding here is not dealing with the really important principles involved.



No, Christ actually died. God did not prevent this.



Right, Christ died of a broken heart (in the first paragraph you cited).

Saying “death is the direct consequence of sin” is not the same thing as saying “sin will kill the wicked”. Do you agree?


Wind is the fruit of other factors. The resulting structural damage is indirectly caused by those factors. What is sin the fruit of? What are the other factors?


Suffering and punishment are two different realities. We both agree suffering and first death is not the penalty for sinning. It happens because God prevents penalty and permits sinning without punishment. Suffering and second death is the punishment for sinning. Do you agree?


I merely asked you to explain who or what you think will punish and destroy the wicked. Clearly you are opposed to any idea that suggests sin will punish and destroy sinners. What isn’t clear, though, is who or what you think will. You are quick to say “death is the direct consequence of sin”. But this doesn’t answer the question. Cause and consequence are two different realities. The “cause” is punishment; the “consequence” is eternal death. So the questions remains – Who or what will punish the wicked? And, how and why does it kill them?


Are you describing literal or symbolic life and death? Do you think the character of God gives and takes life physically, literally (like the presence and absence of the breath of life)? If so, how does God’s character “slay” the wicked?

Also, must the wicked behold the form and character of God to experience suffering and second death? Or, is suffering and second death inevitable whether or not they behold His form and character? Since you believe the character of God will “slay” the wicked, how can they experience suffering and second without beholding His form and character?


Again, suffering and punishment are two entirely different realities. The reason sinners can sin without immediately experiencing second death is because God works supernaturally to prevent it. The question is – What does God prevent? I believe He prevents the radiant firelight of His person and presence from killing them. You seem to think He supplies supernatural life support because selfishness compromises natural life support. If so, pulling the plug, as it were, will kill them. Do you agree?


You wrote, “Obedience to the law gives life. Disobedience to the law results in death.” Why do you think obedience gives life and disobedience takes it? You also believe the character of God gives and takes life. You’re not making sense.


Do you think God supernaturally prevented Jesus from dying of “broken heart syndrome” so that He could live long enough to taste, consume, and conquer our sin and second death? Do you agree that “broken heart syndrome” compromised Jesus’ human life support and that He would have died prematurely had God not supernaturally supported Him? And, do you agree Jesus died of “broken heart syndrome” the instant God ceased supporting Him supernaturally?