It doesn't appear, in asking this, that you read what I wrote. Immediately following we have:



So here I'm giving you an example of something else.



Here you are misrepresenting what I said. I have quoted the following from the SOP:



I've never said what you claimed I said.



Here you are misrepresenting what I said. I have quoted the following from the SOP:



I've never said what you claimed I said.



You're saying they are killed by each other?

It seems like you're jumping around. You were speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, and then quote from the last chapter of "The Great Controversy," which is speaking of something else.



Regarding the first death, I think we've discussed this in the past, and that we see things similarly. I pointed out I didn't understand your train of thought in bringing this up. You haven't explained that. I think we can let this drop, and should, unless you can tie this in to our discussion.



Why do you say "if"?



Isn't this clear that the second death is the inevitable result of sin? Regarding the second part of your question, I think what I've actually said is "the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will slay the wicked." The reason why I say this is the same reason I say that the inevitable result of sin is death, which is that is what "The Desire of Ages" says.



If you leave out the context, and just say something like "you believe it’s because God’s character kills sinners," you misrepresent my position.

I've quoted the following:



This explains the principle involved, which I've commented upon in detail.



Yes, this is a point we disagree on. You see no direct connection between sin and death (i.e., the second death), but that the death of the wicked comes as the result of an arbitrary act of power on the part of God (Webster's primary definition of "arbitrary"). I disagree, seeing that there is a direct relationship between sin and death, as opposed to an indirect one.



It's innocuous insofar as it does not directly result in death (the second death).

By setting aside Roman involvement in the death of Jesus as “something else” besides capital punishment that has no corollary in the final judgment it sounds like you believe Roman involvement and capital punishment are two different aspects of Jesus’ death. If Romans did not impose capital punishment on Jesus who did?


“In the fate of the chosen city we may behold the doom of a world that has rejected God's mercy and trampled upon His law.” Do you believe the destruction of Jews and Jerusalem by Romans imperfectly portrays the final judgment?


Do you believe Satan will destroy sinners and himself during the final judgment when God withdraws His protection? For example, Jesus said, “I will destroy man.” (Gen 6:7) “I will destroy my people.” (Isa 15:7) “I will destroy the city and the inhabitants thereof.” (Jer 46:8) “I will destroy thee; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD.” (Eze 25:7) “I will destroy thee, O covering cherub.” (Eze 28:16) “I will destroy thy mother.” (Hosea 4:5) Are these examples of Satan’s “own work”?


What do you think? When they turn upon them in a fit of rage do any of them die?


Just making sure things haven’t changed. You still believe the suffering and death we experience in this lifetime is arbitrary and unnatural. As such, then, we cannot cite it as evidence sin naturally causes suffering and death. Since it is arbitrary and unnatural, what can we learn from it about suffering and second death during the final judgment?


First, what is clear to me is that punishment ends in second death. I do not agree that sin, in and of itself, acting alone, is what will kill the wicked. Neither sin nor its results will kill the wicked. Second death is the result of capital punishment. Secondly, I disagree with your idea that the character of God will kill the wicked. She wrote, “The light of the glory of God” will kill the wicked.


Correct, sin cannot directly or indirectly kill the wicked. In fact, “sin is the transgression of the law” and, as such, it cannot kill anyone or anything. Sinners kill each other. But murder is not the punishment for sinning. Judicially, death is the result of capital punishment. Jesus earned the legal right on the cross to punish and destroy the wicked.


True. But there is nothing innocuous about sinning. Just look around. Sinners are causing all kinds of grief. It is horrendous. Somebody should do something about it. In the end, Jesus will punish and destroy sinners. “For it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” It does not say God will withdraw His protection and permit sin or His character to kill them.


Not so. The Lamb of God tasted, consumed, and conquered sin and second death. Sin did not kill Jesus. He laid down His own life and took it up again to prove He possesses the keys of hell and of death. The scapegoat, not the Lord’s goat, dies the second death with the sins of the saved.

It sounds like you believe the character of God is the active agent in the death of the wicked. Is this what you believe?


Had God allowed them to die, loyal beings would have feared God and rebelled against Him. The question is - Why? Why would they blame and fear God if, as you say, the rebellious angels would have simply died spontaneously, for no apparent reason?

Also, the expression “left to reap” does not disallow capital punishment. In courts of law, criminals are “left to reap” the consequences of their choices. It simply means nothing else can be done to prevent the inevitable, namely, punishment. Law and justice require punishment. Why? Because sinning and its consequences is not punishment.

Sin and sinning does not punish them now and it certainly will not punish them in the final judgment. God will execute justice and judgment. "While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law. {PP 628.1}

Why do you think it sounds that way? A couple of posts ago I wrote:



Why doesn't it appear to you that I think death is a direct consequence of sin?



She wrote that "it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe." I read this as saying there was a possibility that it would result in further sin, not that she was saying for sure that loyal angels would rebel against God.



Because they would have assumed God was causing their death. So it would have appeared that Satan's accusations were correct, that if you cross God, He will kill you. It would have led to a service of God based on fear, rather than love. This looks to be a real danger if one disconnects death from sin. Once this disconnect is made, then God becomes the One one needs to fear, rather than sin, which has a profound impact on the dynamics of one's relationship with God.



In context, it very clearly does. Immediately before we read:



This is obviously not speaking of capital punishment. She uses the expression "they receive the results of their choice," followed by the explanation "place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them," which is clearly not capital punishment.



This idea doesn't fit with the context of what she wrote. Also, there wouldn't be anything to misunderstand. Her point is that they didn't understand that death was the inevitable result of sin. It doesn't make sense for her to say that if God had killed Satan right away, they angels wouldn't have understood that death is the inevitable result of sin, as, in this case, it wouldn't be true.



Sure, you can say that God punishes the wicked. And He does so in accordance with the principles explained. God allows them to receive the results of their choice.



This is the same idea.

Once we recognize that death really is the inevitable result of sin, it no longer becomes necessary to view God in this way.

Tom, this is a confusing point for me. You say that sin "itself" does not cause death, but you also said, "Death is a *direct* consequence of sin, not an indirect one." It's confusing to me.

So let me see if I can clear something up. Does there exist any X such that the statement "X itself causes death" is true? IOW, is there anything that "itself" causes death?

Assuming Satan will eventually reap eternal death, what's to prevent the universe from thinking that if you cross God, He will kill you 6000 years later?

Assuming that Satan will be the last sinner to die, wouldn't the logical connection be that the more you sin the longer you can delay death?

You claimed,"you believe the destruction of Jews and Jerusalem by Romans perfectly portrays the final judgment." This is false. I never claimed this. You asked for an example of something that was different, volunteering that I would say that capital punishment was something different. I said there were many things that were different. I gave the fact that Romans were involved as an example of something else that's different.

There's no reason whatsoever to link this to capital punishment. To ask, "If Romans did not impose capital punishment on Jesus who did?" does not seem to me to be a question that makes sense to ask, based on what I wrote.



I think this is rather vague. What do you mean?

To say what I think in a positive way, I think the principles explained in GC 36 also apply to the judgment. This is what EGW said, and this is the important point, IMO.



Ellen White wrote, "God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire." This explains that Satan and those who follow him ruin their own characters, which results in their destruction. In this sense, it's an example of Satan's own work.



I asked you what you're saying. You said, "I wonder how many will be killed when enraged sinners turn upon the leaders." This sounds like you're saying they kill each other. Are you?



No, I've never said this. Is this what you think?

When I said we see things similarly what I had in mind is that if God had not taken action, Adam and Eve would have died right away. FW 21 discusses this.



Why not? Isn't it obvious that this is what happens? People grow old and die, or die of disease (if they are not killed violently). What do you think caused this, if not sin?



I think your question includes a false premise here. The fact that God prevents sin from causing one to die right away does not mean that sin is disconnected from their eventual death, which appears to me to be how you're reasoning. I don't think this reasoning is correct, as just because X causes Y to happen instantly, and you prevent that from happening, you cannot conclude that X doesn't cause Y to happen in a fashion that takes more time.



Of course not. It's not a sentient being that, in and of itself, acting alone "does" anything. The following discusses how sin works:



Sin is like a parasite. It has to have a host. It does nothing "of itself" but, like a harmful parasite, destroys its host. It causes us to believe things about God which are not true, an idea I got from Ty Gibson, which I've shared. I think what he wrote about the fall (Adam and Eve) is right on.



Since death is "the inevitable result of sin," I disagree with this idea.



In this case, the death of the wicked would be due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, as opposed to the rejecters of His mercy reaping that which they have sown. Also, in this case, it would follow that we should view God as standing toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression, as opposed to leaving the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.



It looks to me that you're disagreeing with *your* idea of what my idea is, as opposed to what my idea is. I see you haven't quoted anything I wrote. I've tried to be very careful to quote from the SOP. So, unless you can quote something saying otherwise, I'll have to conclude this is simply an idea you have in regards to what I've said, as opposed to something I've actually said.

What Ellen White *actually* wrote is, "The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked." That the light of the glory of God imparts life to the righteous is very important to note. It disallows the idea that the wicked die because they are exposed to radiant firelight, since radiant firelight does not give life to the righteous.



In this case, death would not be the inevitable result of sin.



So you think one can transgress the law and yet live. This is what I've been disagreeing with. The law is "the law of life for the universe." One cannot disobey the "law of life" and live.

Obedience to the law gives life. Disobedience to the law results in death.



Suffering and death results from the transgression of God's law, not as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin.



The kingdom of God is not like the kingdom of God. Trying to understand how the justice of God works by thinking in terms of Western justice is another fundamental disagreement the two of us have. The following two points result in much of our disagreements, I believe:

a.Death is not the direct result of sin (or indirect, you wrote above).
b.The justice of God is like Western justice.

These are principles you appear to me to believe. I disagree with these ideas, believing that death is the inevitable result of sin (as a direct consequence), and the justice of God is very different than Western justice.

Here's an interesting quote regarding justice:



Jesus said, "Judge not that you be not judged, for the same judgment you apply to others will be applied to you."

This brings out that we are judged according to our own idea of justice. This has very different from the concepts of Western justice.



This is true.



God is trying as hard as He can to bring it to an end! For this reason He sent a "most precious message" to prepare the world for the coming of Christ. When the light He sends is accepted, rather than rejected, then Christ will come again, and sin will be brought to an end.



It IS saying that God will withdraw His protection and leave the wicked to receive the result of their choice. This is the wrath of God.



What's not so?



Christ died of a broken heart, the result of sin. See DA 753.

Perhaps what I wrote to MM, where I spoke of sin being like a parasite, will clear things up.



I'm not sure what you're asking.

I've been saying that there is a direct relationship between sin and death. Death "is the inevitable result of sin."

Sin is not a person or being that can act of its own volition. MM has written certain things that seemed to me to expressing the idea that he was speaking of sin in such a way. This is what I was disagreeing with.

Sin is transgression of the law. Decisions we make, whether thoughts or deeds, which contradict the "law of life" are sins. Sin is based on selfishness, which is not a principle which can suppose life. It can only result in suffering, misery, and death.



Good question! The death of Christ.

The chapter "It Is Finished" explains what Christ accomplished by His death. One of the things He accomplished was to demonstrate the principles involved in the destruction of the wicked. This is why EGW is discussing these things in DA 764.

Christ's death demonstrated that death is the inevitable result of sin, as opposed to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God. Had God permitted Satan and his followers to reap the result of their sin immediately, they would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that this was the inevitable result of sin. Instead it would have appeared that their death was due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God. After Christ's death, this truth (that death is the inevitable result of sin) was made apparent.



This follows from your point of view, doesn't it? That is, if God punishes people by setting them on fire, and then lets them burn longer if they have sinned more, then aren't they delaying their death by sinning more?

I thought "mathematical" language might be clear, but I guess not. Let me ask it another way.

_________ itself causes death.

Is there anything we can fill the blank with that makes the statement true?

No, the exact mechanism that causes death - fire, mental anguish, broken heart, whatever - is irrelevant. The only "point of view" required is the a) Satan has the most sin, and b) Satan will die last. If you look at those two factors, you will find a strong positive correlation between sin and existence. IOW, one who sins less will cease to exist sooner than one who sins more.

If we accept that sin brings death instead of life, then we must conclude that the relationship between sin and death is more complex than your virus analogy suggests. With a virus, more viruses -> less life, the opposite of Satan's case.

If we would keep your virus analogy, then instead of sin bringing "lack of existence" we must come up with a theory that covers Satan's case. One such theory is "sin brings suffering." More sin -> more suffering. That fits Satan's case. But it may impact other aspects of our theology.