In my mind, God is “supernaturally” modifying the promised consequences of sinning, namely, instant death – not 900 years of suffering and sadness and gradual decay. The consequences of sinning, as we it, was not part of the original promise - Thou shalt surely die. Do you agree? I would like to know if you agree with these insights. They are important to my understanding of sin and death and suffering.

I'd like to respond, but I didn't understand your point. If you try again, I'll be happy to respond.

The fact Eve did not die the very instant she sinned, exactly as God promised, strongly suggests that death is not the natural cause and consequence results of sinning, at least not in the same way lopping off a head causes someone to die immediately.

I disagree. It strongly suggests that God intevened by grace, allowing Christ to become our Sin-Bearer the moment man sinned. In fact, if you look at FW 21, 22 you will see that EGW makes precisely this point.

The relationship between sinning and death is different than lopping off heads and death. Do you agree?

I'd have to know in what sense you mean. If you mean in the sense that there is a direct casual relationship between the two, then I disagree they the relationship is different. If you had something else in mind, I might not disagree.

The plan of salvation was not implemented until after Adam sinned, therefore, it is not the reason why our first parents did not die immediately.

This is not right. As soon as there was sin, there was a Savior.

quote:

---

The world has been committed to Christ, and through Him has come every blessing from God to the fallen race. He was the Redeemer before as after His incarnation. As soon as there was sin, there was a Saviour. (DA 210)

---

Some other reason accounts for why they didn’t die instantly. Otherwise, Eve would not have survived long enough to tempt Adam later on. Do you agree?

No, I disagree. The reason they didn't die immediately is the same reason we don't. It's because of the grace of God.

But I do not believe death is the natural result consequences of sinning based on the fact God was constrained to prevent us from eating the fruit of the tree of life. Why? Because we would live forever in a sinful state. “And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.” (Gen 3:22) Obviously, there is more to death than merely sinning.

I don't know what you're saying here. Sin has death wrapped up in it. You can't have sin and not get death. On the other hand, you can't have death without sin. Sin results in death. The cross demonstrates this.

If, as you seem to believe, death is the natural consequences of sinning, and not imposed or inflicted by God, how could sinners live for ever?

They can't. It's only by the grace of God that we live at all. Had Christ agreed to become our Savior, man would have died immediately, tree or no tree.

Eternal life does not come from a tree.

OK. I'll to stay clear of "convoluted." Somehow that made it past the editor.

What you said before was this:

quote:

---

If God is holding back the natural consequences of our sins it tells me He is responsible for the outcome of our choices.

---

(I removed the word "unnaturally"). This is at odds with what inspiration repeatedly teaches us, which is that we are responsible for the outcomes of our choices. For example:

quote:

---

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...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. (DA 764)

---

God does not force us to think, speak or behave in one way or another. We are free to choose to abide in Jesus. Otherwise, we abide in sin and death by default. We do not have to choose to sin, we only have to neglect to choose to abide in Jesus and we will sin instinctively. There is no neutrality.

I agree there is no neutrality, and this reason is expressed here:

quote:

---

The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. (DA 176)

---

It should be empahsized that God is drawing us to Himself, and we must resist in order to be lost. So in this sense we could say that being saved is what will happen by default, since we have to do something, which is to resist, in order to be lost. Of course, it can also be said we must do something in order to be saved, but the point is if we don't resist, we will do what is necessary to be saved.

Yes, we manage the choices, but Jesus manages the consequences.

This would be arbitrary. God is not arbitrary. The consequences come as a result of the choices. Take a look at DA 764 above. "This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice." Look at the whole paragraph. GC 35, 36 brings this out as well.

TE - Satan alone is the author of sin, suffering and death.

MM – Satan did not create sin, suffering, or death. God is the creator, not the Devil. Satan cannot create anything. He can only distort what God has created. Lucifer is the first free moral agent to sin. That’s all. He did not create sin.

Yes he did.

quote:

---

The fall of our first parents, with all the woe that has resulted, he charges upon the Creator, leading men to look upon God as the author of sin, and suffering, and death.(DA 24)

---

Satan seeks to lead us to view God as responsible for creating sin, suffering and death, but these things are Satan's inventions.

Sinners suffer when they sin because God modified the death penalty.

Modified? The death penalty is that sin results in death. There's nothing to be modified.

The suffering they experience is managed by Jesus. Sometimes He causes it directly, and other times allows evil angel to cause it to happen.

Sin causes suffering, not Jesus. Before there was sin, there was no suffering. After there is sin no more, there will be no more suffering. Jesus will continue, however.

MM – Jesus did not defeat sin and death on the cross as evidenced by the fact both are still alive and well today.

TE - This statement shocked me. Let's start a thread on it.

MM – Why? Do you doubt that sin and death are still happening?

This shocked me:

quote:

---

Jesus did not defeat sin and death on the cross.

---

If true, this statement would pretty much wipe out the entire New Testament. The thread's been started. I'll see what you have to say there.

TE - I also don't understand the comment about "if someone else wins the Great Controversy." The Great Controversy has already been won. It was won at the cross. Who else to do you think could win, and how could they win?

MM – Jesus has not yet won the GC as evidenced by the fact it is still very much going on all around us today.

MM – It is not a question of whether or not Jesus will win the GC. It has been known from eternity that Jesus would win the GC. No question about it.

Sure there was a question.

quote:

---

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49; emphasis mine)

---

quote:

---

Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. (COL 196)

---

Heaven itself was imperiled until the victory Christ won at the cross. Notice Satan's reaction:

quote:

---

All heaven triumphed in the Saviour's victory. Satan was defeated, and knew that his kingdom was lost. (DA 758)

---

You seem to be denying that anything happened at the cross. It was the cross that won the victory. That's when Satan knew he had lost. That's because that's when Satan did lose.

So, I should qualify what I posted by adding – The GC is not yet over. Whether or not Jesus will win it is not in question. He knows the end from the beginning, so He can assure us that affliction shall not rise up a second time.

The reason sin won't arise again is because the principles related to the Great Controversy have been made known. That's what the cross accomplished.

Tom, it is clear we disagree on fundamental points. I believe God punishes and destroys unsaved sinners. I do not believe it is the result of natural law. You believe He merely ceases holding in the check the inevitable cause and effect relationship between sinning and instant death. I believe sinners could live indefinitely if God allowed them to eat freely of the tree of life. You believe they would die instantly in spite of the tree. I believe eternal life depends upon us eating regularly of the tree of life, even in the New Earth. Do you agree?

I believe the results of sinning as we know it were never part of the original promise, which was – In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. These past 6,000 years of gradually decaying and dying was made possible when Jesus implemented the plan of salvation. Otherwise, the human race would have ended with the immediate death of our first parents, not a long lingering death. Do you agree?

I believe the plan of salvation was implemented after Adam sinned. The SOP describes how Jesus and the Father wrestled over the decision to employ or not to employ the plan of salvation, and that they wrestled with this decision after Adam sinned. This implies that the plan of salvation was not in operation when Eve or when Adam sinned. Do you agree? If not, then how do you explain what Sister White wrote about when the plan of salvation was implemented relative to when they sinned??

Tom, it is clear we disagree on fundamental points. I believe God punishes and destroys unsaved sinners.

Me too.

I do not believe it is the result of natural law.

I've never said this.

You believe He merely ceases holding in the check the inevitable cause and effect relationship between sinning and instant death.

There's no doubt God does do this. We'd all be dead if not for the grace of God. If we had to bear the guilt of our sin, it would crush us. I'm not sure how you're understanding what's going on here. I think there may be more to it than what you are thinking, so the "merely" may be misplaced. Not sure.

I believe sinners could live indefinitely if God allowed them to eat freely of the tree of life.

No, this wouldn't be possible, unless God were to continuously allow such by grace. God is a consuming fire to sin whereever it is found. The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked. The only reason this doesn't happen is because God shrouds His glory. Eating fruit from a tree would not help.

You believe they would die instantly in spite of the tree. I believe eternal life depends upon us eating regularly of the tree of life, even in the New Earth. Do you agree?

I think you're missing the point of the tree completely. Eternal life comes from God.

I believe the results of sinning as we know it were never part of the original promise, which was – In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. These past 6,000 years of gradually decaying and dying was made possible when Jesus implemented the plan of salvation. Otherwise, the human race would have ended with the immediate death of our first parents, not a long lingering death. Do you agree?

Yes. If we had to bear the guilt of our sin, it would crush us. As soon as their was sin, there was a Savior. Christ immediately began bearing the sin of man, which makes the continued existence of man possible. We live by the grace of God. To the death of Christ, we owe even our earthly life.

I believe the plan of salvation was implemented after Adam sinned. The SOP describes how Jesus and the Father wrestled over the decision to employ or not to employ the plan of salvation, and that they wrestled with this decision after Adam sinned. This implies that the plan of salvation was not in operation when Eve or when Adam sinned. Do you agree?

No. As EGW points out, as soon as their was sin, there was a Savior.

If not, then how do you explain what Sister White wrote about when the plan of salvation was implemented relative to when they sinned??

There's nothing to explain. As soon as their was sin, there was a Savior. That what she says. A little thought would show this would have to be the case. I believe her.

TE - This is at odds with what inspiration repeatedly teaches us, which is that we are responsible for the outcomes of our choices.

MM – According to the original promise, which was – In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die – the outcome of the choice to sin was supposed to have been instant death, not nine centuries of suffering and gradual decay. Do you agree?

If so, then do you also agree that the plan of salvation changed or modified the original outcome of sinning? That is, do you agree that the plan of salvation created a new and different relationship between sinning and the original promise regarding instant death?

If so, then do you also agree that there are times when the results of sinning defy natural law? That is, do you agree that there are times when God modifies the natural cause and effect relationship between sinning and its normal, predictable consequences?

If you can agree with these insights, then you should be able to agree that God, and not natural law, is in control of the consequences or outcome of our choices to sin. Please understand that I’m not talking about reaping what we sow in the lake of fire.

I’m speaking specifically about the results of sinning that happen the moment we choose to sin, not the final results of sinning that we will reap in the lake of fire (if we refuse to be saved). Do you see what I mean?

TE - It should be empahsized that God is drawing us to Himself, and we must resist in order to be lost. So in this sense we could say that being saved is what will happen by default, since we have to do something, which is to resist, in order to be lost. Of course, it can also be said we must do something in order to be saved, but the point is if we don't resist, we will do what is necessary to be saved.

MM – I believe the emphasis is that we must choose to consent and cooperate with the heavenly agencies in order to be saved in heaven, and that if we refuse to consent and cooperate we are lost by default. I suspect we will never agree on this point.

We also disagree regarding sinning. I believe the potential for sinning will exist throughout eternity. I do not believe Satan created it. The potential for sinning came into existence when God created free moral agents capable of choosing to sin. Lucifer was the first FMA to sin, but he did not create it.

MM – It is not a question of whether or not Jesus will win the GC. It has been known from eternity that Jesus would win the GC. No question about it.

TE - Sure there was a question.

MM – Not so. Jesus knew He would succeed on the cross. He never doubted it. That was the essence of His victory on the cross, that is, He never doubted the promises and prophecies that described Him succeeding on the cross. Here’s one of the many ways Sister White describes it:

TMK 37
Christ came to this world for no other purpose than to manifest the glory of God, that man might be uplifted by its restoring power. All power and grace were given to Him. His heart was a wellspring of living water, a never-failing fountain, ever ready to flow forth in a rich, clear stream to those around Him. His whole life was spent in pure disinterested benevolence. His purposes were full of love and sympathy. He rejoiced that He could do more for His followers than they could ask or think. His constant prayer for them was that they might be sanctified through the truth, and He prayed with assurance, knowing that an almighty decree had been given before the world was made. He knew that the gospel of the kingdom would be preached in all the world; that truth, armed with the omnipotence of the Holy Spirit, would conquer in the contest with evil; and that the bloodstained banner would one day wave triumphantly over His followers. {TMK 37.2}

TE - You seem to be denying that anything happened at the cross. It was the cross that won the victory. That's when Satan knew he had lost. That's because that's when Satan did lose.

MM – How so? If the Devil has already lost the GC, if Jesus has already won the GC, why, then, are we still living in a world full of sinners, a world dominated by sin and evil, suffering and death?

Tom, do you think regularly eating of the tree of life will be necessary in the New Earth in order to live eternally?

Also, I'm glad we were able to agree that instant death, not a long lingering death, was the original punishment for sinning, and that things were greatly modified when the plan of salvation was implemented.

It is clear, though, that we thoroughly disagree as to how the relationship between sinning and suffering and death play out under the current rules of engagement.

MM - If not, then how do you explain what Sister White wrote about when the plan of salvation was implemented relative to when they sinned??

TE - There's nothing to explain. As soon as their was sin, there was a Savior. That what she says. A little thought would show this would have to be the case. I believe her.

MM - I agree with her. But how do you explain the fact that the plan of salvation was not implemented until after Adam sinned?

TE - This is at odds with what inspiration repeatedly teaches us, which is that we are responsible for the outcomes of our choices.

MM – According to the original promise, which was – In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die – the outcome of the choice to sin was supposed to have been instant death, not nine centuries of suffering and gradual decay. Do you agree?

If so, then do you also agree that the plan of salvation changed or modified the original outcome of sinning? That is, do you agree that the plan of salvation created a new and different relationship between sinning and the original promise regarding instant death?

If so, then do you also agree that there are times when the results of sinning defy natural law? That is, do you agree that there are times when God modifies the natural cause and effect relationship between sinning and its normal, predictable consequences?

If you can agree with these insights, then you should be able to agree that God, and not natural law, is in control of the consequences or outcome of our choices to sin. Please understand that I’m not talking about reaping what we sow in the lake of fire.

I’m speaking specifically about the results of sinning that happen the moment we choose to sin, not the final results of sinning that we will reap in the lake of fire (if we refuse to be saved). Do you see what I mean?

The results of sinning is death. The only reason this isn't immediate is because of the grace of God. You're making an artifical disctinction where none exists.

TE - It should be empahsized that God is drawing us to Himself, and we must resist in order to be lost. So in this sense we could say that being saved is what will happen by default, since we have to do something, which is to resist, in order to be lost. Of course, it can also be said we must do something in order to be saved, but the point is if we don't resist, we will do what is necessary to be saved.

MM – I believe the emphasis is that we must choose to consent and cooperate with the heavenly agencies in order to be saved in heaven, and that if we refuse to consent and cooperate we are lost by default. I suspect we will never agree on this point.

Do you agree with this?

quote:

---

The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8. (DA 176)

---

We also disagree regarding sinning. I believe the potential for sinning will exist throughout eternity. I do not believe Satan created it.

The potential for sinning came into existence when God created free moral agents capable of choosing to sin. Lucifer was the first FMA to sin, but he did not create it.

You seem to be reasonably intelligent, yet you pretty frequently twist things. I don't know why. Are you confused about what we were talking about? It's hard to believe that. But it's even harder to believe you're doing this on purpose.

We weren't talking about the potential for sinning. Of course Satan didn't invent this. This comes from being a free moral agent, as you state. We weren't talking about this, and I've never said anything contrary to what you wrote. Why would you write this is something we disagree on?

You write "We agree on ..." when you know it's something we don't agree on, and write "We disagree on ..." on something we do agree on. This is very odd.

What we actually were talking about was who created sin. Not the potential for sin, but sin. Satan is the author of sin, suffering and death. He tries to lead us to believe that God is.

Tom, do you think regularly eating of the tree of life will be necessary in the New Earth in order to live eternally?

It's something we will do. God could have chosen some other mechanism, but chose this one. The mechanism doesn't matter. The imporant thing to realize is that life comes from God. That's what the meaning of the tree is.

Also, I'm glad we were able to agree that instant death, not a long lingering death, was the original punishment for sinning, and that things were greatly modified when the plan of salvation was implemented.

I've got a feeling you have an entirely different idea in mind than I do with these words. I very seriously doubt I agree with your ideas here.

It is clear, though, that we thoroughly disagree as to how the relationship between sinning and suffering and death play out under the current rules of engagement.

I'm not sure what you think. I have an idea. I think you think God is responsible for all the suffering and death that happens, and He just chooses different methodologies on how to implement the suffering and death that He imposes on people. Is that right?

I believe that God is like Christ. If we look at Christ's life and character, we can see what the relationship is between sin, suffering, and death.

MM - If not, then how do you explain what Sister White wrote about when the plan of salvation was implemented relative to when they sinned??

TE - There's nothing to explain. As soon as their was sin, there was a Savior. That what she says. A little thought would show this would have to be the case. I believe her.

MM - I agree with her. But how do you explain the fact that the plan of salvation was not implemented until after Adam sinned?

As soon as their was sin their was a Savior. You said you agree with this. Why your quesiton then? What is there to explain? It was some time after; it was right when it happened. "As soon as their was sin there was a Savior." Note the words "as soon." That doesn't mean "after."