Mark: Tom, the quote Rose provided is a good counterbalance and shows the other side of the coin to what you’re saying.

Tom: I think there's only one side. Sin results in death. That's what God has been saying all along. He warned Adam and Eve, and Satan said He was lying.

Mark: God allowed sin to develop so all could see its results and could see His mercy and forbearance in allowing the demonstration to take place.

Tom: And what are its results? It is not death? Isn't that what God was allowing us and the unfallen beings to see? Isn't that what we see on the cross?

Mark: But it is God who enforces His law not sin itself.

Tom: Sin results in death. The sting of death is sin. You can't have sin without death. It's impossible. There's no need for it to be "enforced" any more than that God "enforces" the law that knowing God is life eternal.

Mark: Death is the penalty that God has imposed for sin.

Tom: It's not an "imposed" penalty. It's a law. It's the law of sin and death. The Spirit of Prophesy carefully explained it. The sinner cuts himself off from God who is the source of life and thus dies. That's just what she says. God gives the wicked over to the result of their choice, which is death. All they that hate Christ love death.

Mark: The penalty for sin is not death merely because of the nature of sin or by definition. The penalty is death primarily because God knew from the beginning that this is the only appropriate penalty for unrepentant spirits, whether men, angels or other beings. Secondarily, it is death because that is the way the Creator made things work. In both cases, the reasons are directly attributed to God – first as King and second as Creator.

Tom: What are you basing this argument from? How does it address the questions I raised about 3 posts ago? Please re-read that post and make an attempt to answer it. So far nobody has even made an attempt to deal with the issues raised in that post. (the one asking why God had to wait until after the death of Christ for the wicked to be destroyed because otherwise an evil seed of doubt would have remained). I just can't see how the paradigm Roseangela is suggesting fits into what EGW is saying there.

Mark: So I would say there is no scriptural reason to suggest that sin is lethal of itself. God made provision for the possibility of sin from the beginning. From the beginning death has been the Divine penalty for sin. He made the universe to work this way for our good.

Tom: "The sting of death is sin." "The wages of sin is death." "In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." "The soul that sins shall die." All of these statements state that sin is lethal. There's no reason *not* to think that sin is lethal. That is sin is lethal was demonstrated conclusively at the cross. The only ones in the whole universe that have any doubt about this reside on this planet.

It is because sin has been demonstrated to be lethal that God can safely act to bring about its end. That is what the paragraph in DA which discusses this is all about. I'll requote it here:

quote:

---

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but 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. DA 764

---

If God imposes an arbitrary penalty, then it makes no sense for EGW to say that "it would not have been apparent that this was the inevitable result of sin." It wouldn't have been apparent because it wouldn't ahve been the case! It wouldn't have been "inevitable." It's not "inevitable" if the only reason it happens is because God does something. That's not "inevitable." That's avoidable. God could simply choose not to do that thing. But God *can't* choose not to do this thing because death is wrapped up in sin. Sin kills.

We agree that the penalty of sin is not arbitrary. The penalty is just.

Death from sin is 'inevitable' because this is the just penalty and the way God created the universe to work. Transgression brings death inevitably because 1) its the just penalty of God and 2) no created intellegence can survive without the sustaining lifeforce of God. It is true that transgression severs that connection, but again, that is the way God made us - creatures who only borrow life, but do not have it in themselves.

If Adam had eaten of the tree of life after sinning, he might still be alive today. The reason that the tree of life needed to be gaurded was that God did not want to immortalize sin. If sin was lethal in itself, it would not have been necessary to guard the tree of life.

This makes the forbearance of God glorious. God is the only self-existent being. All other existence is borrowed. We have to wonder at the patience of a God who would continue to sustain the life of the most malignant rebel, Lucifer, at such a cost to Himself, initially in order to save the lives of the unfallen beings, and now in order to save us.

This is not to say that Satan has any positive role in our salvation. But as we overcome his temptations by faith we are changed and restored to ever closer fellowship with God.

Tom,

Why is death the inevitable result of sin? Completing what Mark said, I would say that it is because God and sin can’t coexist. God must destroy sin, therefore it is inevitable that those who cling to it must die. What happened at the beginning of sin was that the inhabitants of the universe did not know if the transgression of God’s law was something bad, as God was saying, or something good, as Satan was saying. Therefore, before He could put an end to sin, God had to tolerate its existence for a time, until its evil nature was clearly revealed.
God has appointed a day when He will destroy sin. In order to accomplish that, He must destroy sinners, because sinners are identified with sin. Therefore, the death of sinners is not a natural consequence, but the direct result of God’s intervention.

Just one question: Why wouldn’t God be considered cruel for drowning the inhabitants of the world but would be considered cruel for burning the inhabitants of the world?
The text I quoted in my last post goes on to say:

"God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the Lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force. The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice."--12 MR 208,209.

"Like the waters of the Flood the fires of the great day declare God's verdict that the wicked are incurable." GC 543

[ February 02, 2005, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Rosangela ]

God promised life and death based on obedience or disobedience. He was talking about death by execution. Sin does not kill sinners. God does. Jesus did not die the second death. He tasted and consumed it. He conquered it on the cross. Satan dies the second death of the saved. If God had immediately executed Satan the loyal angels would not have understood the justice and severity. But after observing Satan at the cross, they are eager for him to pay for his sins. The day the Devil expires in the lake of fire there will be rejoicing among the angels. God will stand vindicated. What the SOP says about sin and death makes sense when taken in context. She does not contradict herself.

Tom: Rose, thank you for making an attempt to deal with the questions I asked! I can't see that Mike or Mark made an effort to do so. If either one did, please excuse my missing it, and please make it more clear how you are doing so.

Rose: Tom,

Why is death the inevitable result of sin? Completing what Mark said, I would say that it is because God and sin can’t coexist.

Tom: OK. I'm with you here. God and sin can't coexist. As the SOP puts is, "to sin, wherever it is found, God is consuming fire." This begs the question of how it is that Satan was able to continue to exist. It must be because God did something to prevent the natural occurence of He, as a consuming fire, to consume the sin which was in Satan, wouldn't you agree?

Rose: God must destroy sin, therefore it is inevitable that those who cling to it must die.

Tom: It's not that God *must* consume sin, but God *does* consume sin. Perhaps that's what you meant, I'm not sure. What I'm differenciating between is:

1) God's nature is such that He must make the decision to destroy sin (by some extraneous act foreign to Him simply being Himself).
2) God's nature is such that He consumes sin.

The second point is the correct one: "To sin wherever it is found, God *is* a consuming fire."

Rose: What happened at the beginning of sin was that the inhabitants of the universe did not know if the transgression of God’s law was something bad, as God was saying, or something good, as Satan was saying. Therefore, before He could put an end to sin, God had to tolerate its existence for a time, until its evil nature was clearly revealed.

Tom: That's not what was said! Here's what was said:

quote:

---

"This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. 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. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but 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. (DA 764)

---

What is "this"? "This" is that the wicked have place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. This is the vital point! "This" has nothing to do with whether or not the law of God is good. It has to do with the fact that the wicked have so wrecked themselves by sin that God's glory consumes them. Had God allowed this to happen immediately, it would have appeared to the onlookers that God was executing them, and this would have resulted in an evil seed of doubt. By waiting until after the death of Jesus, which shows the result of sin is death, God can safely allow the wicked to be consumed without the evil seed of doubt arising.

Rose: God has appointed a day when He will destroy sin. In order to accomplish that, He must destroy sinners, because sinners are identified with sin. Therefore, the death of sinners is not a natural consequence, but the direct result of God’s intervention.

Tom: This is the whole point of this thread. What you're suggesting doesn't work. Sin originated in heaven, in the very presence of God, in a sinless being. This shows that simply having an environment with no sinners is not sufficient. *Sin* must be dealt with in a way that it will not arise again. God did this by sending Jesus Christ, who answers the accusations of Satan involved in the Great Controversy. He showed that Satan's accusations were false. After those accusations had been proven false, it would be safe to destroy Satan.

One of the accusations of Satan was that sin does not cause death. If God executed him and his host, that so far from disproving that claim, would have shown that Satan was right. It tood the death of Jesus to establish that fact.

Rose: Just one question: Why wouldn’t God be considered cruel for drowning the inhabitants of the world but would be considered cruel for burning the inhabitants of the world?

Tom: This is a whole another issue, which involves the first death rather than the second. You could raise it in a separate thread if you wish.

Rose: The text I quoted in my last post goes on to say:

"God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the Lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force. The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice."--12 MR 208,209.

"Like the waters of the Flood the fires of the great day declare God's verdict that the wicked are incurable." GC 543


Tom: EGW points out that the way God deals with the wicked using the principles of love, mercy and kindness. She says the exclusion of the wicked is voluntary with themselves and God accepts their choice. We must be careful to keep in mind that God's character in the judgment is consistent with what we see everywhere else in Scripture.

I appreciate your at least referencing what I quoted but respectfully suggest that you have not really considered the issues. Here are in particular two questions that need to be answered:

1) Why was it that the angels did not understand that meant that God could not allow Satan and his host to be destroyed earlier? (Please note the context in answering this -- it's dealing with the destruction of the wicked)
2) Why does God's waiting until after Christ has died allow the wicked to be destroyed without endangering the safety of the universe?

Mike, please address my post of Jan. 31 9:20PM. It has specific points and questions to be considered.

Thank you.

Mark: We agree that the penalty of sin is not arbitrary. The penalty is just.

Tom: The penalty of sin is arbitrary if it does not flow from a law but is rather an act of power from God. The Spirit of Prophesy specifically says it is *NOT* an arbitrary act of power.

Calling a rose by any other name doesn't make it not a rose. In other words, if you describe a process that is arbitrary, simply saying the words "this is not arbitrary" does not make it not arbitrary.

Mark: Death from sin is 'inevitable' because this is the just penalty and the way God created the universe to work. Transgression brings death inevitably because 1) its the just penalty of God and 2) no created intellegence can survive without the sustaining lifeforce of God. It is true that transgression severs that connection, but again, that is the way God made us - creatures who only borrow life, but do not have it in themselves.

Tom: Of course it's the way God made us. What does this have to do with the matter? Death is the inevitable result of sin because sin results in death. That's what "the sting of death is sin" means. We see this truth in Christ. He was made to be sin for us, and He suffered the death that the wicked must suffer.

quote:

---

It will be a dreadful death; for they will have to feel the agony that Christ felt upon the cross to purchase for them the redemption which they have refused. 1T 124

---

Mark: If Adam had eaten of the tree of life after sinning, he might still be alive today. The reason that the tree of life needed to be gaurded was that God did not want to immortalize sin. If sin was lethal in itself, it would not have been necessary to guard the tree of life.

Tom: The tree of life yields its fruit every month. It's not simply eaten of one time.

The tree of life has to do with reviving vital force. God did not wish for this to happen after Adam and Eve sinned. He wanted their vital force to wind down, and it was in mercy that He did this. This has nothing to do with sin being lethal. The Spirit of Prophesy tells us that "to sin wherever it is found, God is a consuming fire." This alone proves the lethality of sin.

I agree completely with your other post.

I would invite you as well to consider and respond to my post of Jan. 1/31 9:20PM. The main question I would like responded to is this one: "At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin."

What does this mean?

Inevitable death means that it is sure to happen. The question is 'why'?

The text you've been quoting points us to the law doesn't it:

'The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.' I Cor. 15:56

Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

WHY?

Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

It is SIN that uses the law unlawfully to kill.