By the way Tom, in regards to our prior discussion on the “practically tangible aspects” of sin, which you apparently have chosen to quietly, wholly ignore, how do created humans live eternally?? I.e., is it a sinless nature that, of itself, tangibly provides this perpetual (and not actually immortal) life, or is it, as the Bible and SOP clearly say, the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life?

By virtue of having free will, every creature has the ability to sin, as Lucifer demonstrated.



Why would you be so uncharitable? There are other possible reasons for my actions, such as being extremely busy, or perhaps an oversight. Why not attribute a motive like that, instead of an ugly one?



Regarding why those who will live forever, there's no reason why they shouldn't. Even insignificant animals, like insects, will live forever. That's without partaking of the tree of life. One might as well ask how that's possible.

Really, the question isn't why beings created by God should live, but why they would die. Death is the aberration, not life.

Really just stated what was, all things reasonable things considered, contextually “apparent” to me, as generally observed... But since you claim to have a “honest/valid” reason: What was it?? (And that is not a “rhetorical” question.)



If this was to occur on its own, created humans would be immortal. In a sense the God vs. human reality is like a car maker vs. a car. The human, relatively speaking has life in itself, whereas the car without necessary ingredients (i.e., fuel/energy) and repairs and maintenance, will never start (i.e., come to life) or last long. In the same way, God’s Creation, with the life-sustaining and repairing ingredients in the Fruit of Life, will, apparently within 1000 years, physically degenerate and die.



I had stated before that something in this line of Fruit of Life seems to have been removed from nature when Adam and Eve sinned. Perhaps this was made available in the water that directly or indirectly provided nutrients to all living things. Inanimate objects like e.g, rocks, iron, gold do not so, of themselves, degenerate and die but only animate ones that feed upon various things to live. So God apparently made this Fruit of live readily accessible to the rest of “(alive) Creation” through other natural means.



The simple, Biblical answer to me is that God could not give immortality to humans/Creation. So He instead devised a means that their life and health could be periodically restored to its initial perfection. Death is thus the natural consequence for Creation without this life-giving means.

Been really busy. Thought I had responded already, but don't see anything. Sorry about that.



I've been really busy. Also, it may have been an oversight.



Immortality is an attribute of God's character. A more accurate way of putting this is that human beings wouldn't not have been subject to death. Death is the fruit of sin. Without sin, there is no death.



Again, death comes as the result of sin. You're making a statement based on what happened after sin arose, which is a different situation.



You're making suggestions based on your original idea being correct. What I'm pointing out is that without sin, there would be no reason for anything to die. You can't divorce death from sin.



Death is the result of sin. There are many statements from inspiration which explain this. For example, James tells us that sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.

From the SOP:

Hello Tom. I appreciate your response and can understand the reason for your prior non-response. However in reading through your answers here, pointedly in your objection to my Bible and SOP based understanding that ‘sin only led to death because man was barred from eating any more from the Tree of Life’ it seems that you did indeed overlook this entire post of mine which further defended that priorly established view. So, as not too restate all of these points again, you’ll first need to respond and/or read through that post, because that is indeed why I maintain my view on Sin and Death as it is still Biblically soundly supported.



I do not see the Bible stating God’s Immortality as a trait of His Character (i.e., conduct/personality), but an inherent physical attribute.



In the (still non-substantially disproven by you) Biblical and SOP understanding that Man died only because they could not eat the Fruit of Life, it is made clear that Man was always, i.e., from his creation, subject to gradually degeneration, however the Tree of Life helped to heal and restore them to perfect status and thus perpetuate their life. As God literally warned in Gen 2:17: ‘by reason of he [i.e., (created) man] naturally dying (Qal infinitive absolute + 3 persons masc. sing suffix) you will consequently die (Qal imperfect).



You need to, both, substantiate that claim with a text other than James 1:15 which I have already exegetically responded to, bringing out its pointed meaning and also address the clear statement to the contrary in Gen 3:22-24 and PP 60.3 (“In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life....”). Just repetitively insisting that ‘I am wrong’ with any Biblical support does not make it so! The arbitrating/determinative proof is in the Bible and SOP and thus far you have not provided such sound and proper support for your Theological view.

...

That DA 764.2 statement fully harmonizes with my understanding of James 1:15. It is not sin in itself that, per se, brings death but the carrying out of sin to its fullness. Also the ‘result of sin being ultimately death’ again is because, as the Bible and SOP clearly state, access to the Tree of Life was barred.

I see from that post that there were many points I responded to. So one could hardly fairly say that I "overlooked" the entire post, given the number of comments I made.

If there's some specific point you'd like to discuss at more length, or some specific point you feel I didn't address, I'll be happy to do so.



I responded to the post, with many comments. Perhaps you could respond to those. Or restate a point you particularly wish discussed.



I'm not sure characterizing it as "physical" is the best way of designating it. This seems like a minor point, however. Lot's just say it's an attribute of God. I think we can both agree to that.



I substantiated that death is the result of sin, both from Scripture and the SOP. From that the rest of what I said follows. The whole question resolved around what the cause of death is. Is it sin? Or something else?



One could just as easily say that in order to possess and endless existence, man must continually breath. But to attribute eternal life to breathing seems to be looking at the issue superficially, because the issue is primarily a spiritual one, having to do with character, not a physical one.



? I don't know what this is referring to. Where have I "insisted" that "you are wrong" without any Biblical support?



I would think the statement that death is "the inevitable result of sin" substantiates the view that death is the result of sin.

There are many statements that establish this. From Scripture:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die."
"The wages of sin is death."
"The sting of death is sin."

Another one from the SOP:





Sin, when completed, brings forth death. That's the idea in James, isn't it?



Is sin primarily a physical or spiritual problem? Consider the above mentioned quote:



Why would the cross bring to men the conviction that the sure result of sin is death, if this is not a spiritual issue?

If you look at the statement in DA 764 in context, it supports through the organic concept I laid out. Something close to a dozen times in those couple of paragraphs, Ellen White repeated that the destruction of the wicked is not due to something God does to them, but is a result of their own choice.

Consider the portion from which I quoted, for example. It says that had God permitted Satan and his followers to reap the full result of sin, they would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that this is the inevitable result of sin. There's no tree involved here. The point is that death is the inevitable result of sin, but had God allowed Satan and his followers to die, it would have appeared to onlookers that God had done something to them to make them die, as opposed to their death being the result of sin.

Sincerely, but frankly, stated here Tom, given that you want to view every Bible and SOP passage through your (supposed) “organic” prism rather than allowing the Bible to define how sin results in death as shown in Gen 2:17; 3:22-24 (PP 60.3) which, particularly in regards tot he Bible passages, you have not provided, at least to me, and exegetically valid response to what they are straightly stating, then I really do not see continuing this discussion as being personally worthwhile, especially at this time. When I take on such Theological Issues, I let the clear and literal passages in the Bible and SOP anchor my study and then study all other passages in this clear light and not vice-versa.

I have also personally seen that such a ‘spiritualizing of everything’ in the Bible as if it is an inherent necessity has greatly hampered a more accurate understanding of our most Real God and derived Theological issues.

So for these reasons, I think I have to end my discussion of this topic here. I nonetheless have appreciated it.

NJK, you are certainly welcome to continue discussions here if you like. Tom has been polite. No one has told you to leave. However, it might help you to enjoy this forum more if you adopt the perspective of this passage.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

NJK, if you choose not to continue the discussion, that's your prerogative, but I'd like to make a comment, which is that we all have paradigms by which we view sacred things. We all share the perspective that the writings we consider inspired are inspired by God, and so believe they have an inherent consistency, despite appearances to the contrary.

It's very common that sincere Christians view things differently. For example, SDA's are in a minority in regards to a number of doctrines, including the State of the Dead. There are many passages which appear to give a point of view contrary to the one we hold. But if we consider the broader picture, there are clear reasons to see why the point of view that we hold makes sense, despite various texts which may appear to be to the contrary.

I give this as example, because what I'm interested in trying to ascertain in these discussions is what's the reasoning of those who hold a different paradigm that I hold. Rarely do people change their paradigms, although it does happen from time to time. But even though paradigms do not change, it's still a valuable experience to see the reasoning of another, and to have the opportunity to defend and consider one's old perspective.

So if you wish to continue our discussion, I welcome that, with the request that you respond to the points I've made and the questions I've asked.