TE - This is not something which God caused to happen, but was the result of an aberant element being added into things. As Christ said, "an enemy has done this."

MM – Actually, it was Jesus who “cursed” the earth for our sakes.

As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, it was Satan who was responsble for the curse, not Jesus. It's a pity to confuse these two.

Quote:

---

Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this" (Matt. 13:27, 28). All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. (2SM 288)

---

Jesus introduced the laws of entropy. He allows evil angels to manipulate the laws of nature according to His good and perfect will.

How did Jesus introduce the laws of entropy? If you mean that the Universe was designed in such a way that sin results in the system not working perfectly as originally designed, that's correct. If you mean that God arbitrarily does something to change they system, that's not correct. The problem is sin, not God. Once sin is removed, the system will work perfectly, as designed.

TE - How many times did Jesus say that God was responsible for any bad thing, including the sickness He was healing someone of, or some death which befell someone? Never.

MM – The idea that Jesus never used sickness or affliction to educate people is unbiblical.

This is irrelvant to my comment. God is able to bringing blessings out of curses. The cross is the best example of this. My question is how many times did Jesus say God was responsible for any bad thing, and the answer is 0. Jesus always ascribed these things to the devil, who properly deserves the "credit" for them.

Whether He causes it Himself or allows holy or evil angels to do His bidding is immaterial.

It's extremely material. This is a fundamental issue which must be understood, or we will grossly misunderstand God's character. Before Jesus Christ came, the relationship between God and evil was not well understood. The Jews had the idea that God was capable of both good and evil. Jesus came to demonstrate that nothing but good flows from the heart of God, and that evil is the device of the enemy. At the very beginning of Christ's ministry, the first thing He did, was to take on the devil. His healings were designed to demonstrate the truth that sin, sickness and death come not from God, but from the evil one. Christ's entire ministry was dedicated to establishing this point.

This is why I asked you the question of how often Christ attributed some evil act to God. The answer is not once, and this is not by accident. The Spirit of Prophecy tells us that *nothing* that man can know about God can be known which was not revealed in the life and character of His Son while here on earth. If we are determined to look everywhere *but* the place that has everything we need or can know about God, we are bound to miss it. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. To know God, we should look to Him. As He Himself said, "Ye search the Scriptures ... but they are they which testify of Me."

Consider one example:

Numbers
12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam [became] leprous, [white] as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, [she was] leprous.

TE - Another problem is that it puts the Father at cross purposes with His Son. We do not see Christ taking anyone's life away. Again and again Christ said He came not to destroy, or to condemn, or to judge, but to save lives.

MM – Yes, Jesus came to save lives, but those who refuse redemption will suffer punishment and death in the lake of fire. The God of the OT was Jesus. The OT is full of stories of how Jesus dealt with sin and sinners. Jesus used water and fire and war to punish and destroy millions of sinners. He will use fire at the end to punish and destroy the wicked in the lake of fire.

Even holy angels did not understand things aright without beholding Jesus Christ as He was in the flesh. You certainly won't be able to do what holy angels couldn't do! When asked to reveal the Fahter, Jesus replied, "Have I been with you so long, that you have not known Me?" God is just like Jesus Christ was in the flesh.

Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

This is a curious verse for you to quote. What do you think this means?

TE – If you wish to give some interpretation to Rev. 14, or any other passage, it must be rejected if you cannot produce an example from the life of Christ was corroborates the suggested interpretation.

MM – Here’s what James White wrote about the angels of Rev 14:

A Word to the Little Flock
Thoughts on Revelation 14
All classes of second advent believers agree, that the angel brought to view in the 6th and 7th verses of this chapter, represents the advent message, to the church and world. If this is true, then all five of the angels brought to view in this chapter, represent five distinct messages, prior to the advent, or we are left without a rule to interpret this chapter. . . . The last two angels are messages of prayer. We shall, no doubt, better understand them at the time of their fulfilment.

TE - According to the Spirit of Prophecy, death is the inevitable result of sin. Actually, according to the Bible, death is the result of sin. It was the serpent who suggested that sin would not result in death. He was wrong, as Christ's death demonstrated.

MM – Yes, death is the result of unforgiven sin – not the cause of it.

The cause of it?! Of course death is not the cause of sin. Why even make this point?

The fact we are alive is evidence that sin does not cause us to die.

The exact argument of the serpent!

The fact Jesus barred access to the tree of life is evidence sin does not cause death.

Regarding our being alive physcially although we have sinned, this is a testament to the grace of God and His wonderful self-sacrificing love; not that sin does not cause us to die. As Paul tells us, "through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin." As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, had God in Christ not intervened immediately, they would have perished the very moment that they sinned (FW 21, 22). We live by the grace of God! To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life. Every breath we take is a gift of infinite value from our Creator and Redeemer.

Sinful choices can cause dreadful results, that is, if Jesus chooses not to intervene, if He decides to allow the laws of cause and effect to go unchecked. Jesus is in control of whether or not we suffer and die on account of our sinful choices – not sin or death or Satan.

God can involve Himself in the timing of when things happen, as related to our first death, but as far as the second death is concerned, if we die, it will the result of our own choice, not something God does to us.

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....The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.(DA 764, 108)

---

The principle of sin is one which can only lead to death. God does not cause this to happen. He prevents it for the ones who allow Him to heal them from the effects of sin, but there is simply no way that one who has given himself over to rebellion can abide in the presence of God. Note that the very same thing which causes the death of the wicked is that which gives life to the righteous. This demonstrates conclusively that it is sin which causes their death, not something God does to them, because the difference is not in what God does, but in the result of the revelation of God's glory. To one it gives life, while to another it slays. Why? Because of sin, clearly.

Thought that this would be a good addition.

1Jo 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
1Jo 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

1Jo 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Here apostle John identifies in verses 10 and 11 that righteousness and love are synonymous so identifying the golden rule as the rightweousness of the law, and in the next verse he says that which was stated:

Quote:

---

It is not sin in others that produces retributive justice in the righteous, but it is sin in the heart of him that holds the retributive justice that produces it.

---

Tom comments:
God never intended for us to know evil. This was the enemy's idea. If God's plans had been followed, no human being would ever have known the pain, suffering, misery and death that sin causes. God is good!

Unquote.

If “no human being would ever have known the pain, suffering, misery and death that sin causes”, then Satan and his angels would live forever. Sin and evilness would live in eternity side by side with righteousness and holiness.

Then what is God purpose to create Adam and Eve in a world where Satan live after he was expelled from heaven? Was he placing them in probation? Is this in line with his plan to wipe off sin and sinners from his universe?

In His love

James S

M.M. wrote:
James, Jesus clearly instructed Adam and Eve regarding Satan’s rebellion and intentions to deceive them. They were not ignorant of good and evil in the sense they were aware of Satan’s evil plans. But they had no experiential knowledge of evil. They had never sinned. That’s what Jesus withheld from them.

Unquote.

The bible said they were created without the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve could not discern what evil is and what good is. They just live an ongoing life based to how they were created.

If “Jesus clearly instructed Adam and Eve regarding Satan’s rebellion and intentions to deceive them,” then they knew what “evil” is because they understood that Satan’s rebellion is something against God’s will and that if he deceived them they would become in the same state as Satan, in rebellion against God.

This I think is not as what the bible said.

In His love

James S

Here apostle John identifies in verses 10 and 11 that righteousness and love are synonymous so identifying the golden rule as the rightweousness of the law, and in the next verse he says that which was stated:

Quote:
It is not sin in others that produces retributive justice in the righteous, but it is sin in the heart of him that holds the retributive justice that produces it.

There's also the statement of Paul's that love is the fulfilling of the law which shows the same thing (that love=righteousness). And of course the fact that love to God and love to man are the two "golden rules" of the law.

The statement "retributive justice" in the second clause is of course ironic. The retribution is there, but there's no justice. Also the whole idea of of "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" is foreign to God's principles. Because of the hardness of the hearts with those with whom He was dealing, God made allowance, but God's idea of justice is and always has been "turn the other cheek" and "walk the second mile." It blows are mind than a government could actually be run by principles such as these. Surely there must be exceptions for special circumstances in which case these principles can be temporarily set aside so the "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" can put down rebellion and get things back in order, so that the more peaceful principles can be returned to.

This is a fundamental issue of the Great Controversy. Is it possible for the universe to be run, always, by the principles by which Christ governed His live and demonstrated? Or do the principles of the evil one, such as force, need to be used against him to put down his rebellion?

TE – As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, it was Satan who was responsble for the curse, not Jesus. It's a pity to confuse these two.

MM – Yes, it is a pity. It is Jesus who gives evil angels permission to curse the earth for our sake. Not the other way around. Evil angels can do nothing without Jesus’ express permission. Apparently you disagree. Do you believe the devils are free to do as they please? Or, do you believe they are answerable to Jesus? Please answer these questions. Thank you.

TE - If you mean that God arbitrarily does something to change they system, that's not correct.

MM – I believe it is clear that Jesus “cursed” the earth because our first parents sinned. If He hadn’t cursed the earth, if He hadn’t given evil angels permission to alter things, the laws of nature would have continued as originally designed. Evil angels are responsible for the changes that have occurred on earth – not sin.

TE - My question is how many times did Jesus say God was responsible for any bad thing, and the answer is 0. Jesus always ascribed these things to the devil, who properly deserves the "credit" for them.

MM – Please consider this example. Who caused Miriam’s leprosy?

Numbers
12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam [became] leprous, [white] as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, [she was] leprous.

TE - This is a curious verse for you to quote. What do you think this means?

MM – In Matthew 10:34, 35 Jesus is explaining the results of His ministry. It’s similar to the parable of the soils and seed.

TE - The cause of it?! Of course death is not the cause of sin. Why even make this point?

MM – I get the impression from what you’re saying that sin causes death like poison kills people. I believe we die the first death because Jesus forbids us to eat of the tree of life. The absence of its supernatural virtue is the cause of death. Its fruit and leaves are the antidote of death. Not even sinning can prevent them from perpetuating life. It appears to me that you disagree. Do you?

8T 28
The fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden possessed supernatural virtue. To eat of it was to live forever. Its fruit was the antidote of death. Its leaves were for the sustaining of life and immortality. {8T 288.1}

TE - As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, had God in Christ not intervened immediately, they would have perished the very moment that they sinned (FW 21, 22). We live by the grace of God! To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life. Every breath we take is a gift of infinite value from our Creator and Redeemer.

MM – I agree. But none of this takes away from the fact we would life forever if Jesus gave us permission to regularly eat of the tree of life. Please see Gen 3:20-22. The reason we gradually die is because the food we are allowed to eat sustains us for as long it does. Ultimately, though, Jesus gives and takes away our breath of life according to His will.

TE - God can involve Himself in the timing of when things happen, as related to our first death, but as far as the second death is concerned, if we die, it will the result of our own choice, not something God does to us.

MM – I agree. If we refuse to accept Jesus as our personal Saviour we will reap the rewards in the lake of fire. Jesus will not cause fire to rain down upon us if we choose Him.

TE - Note that the very same thing which causes the death of the wicked is that which gives life to the righteous. This demonstrates conclusively that it is sin which causes their death, not something God does to them, because the difference is not in what God does, but in the result of the revelation of God's glory.

MM – I do not believe we can build entire theology on this one insight. There is more to it. We must also eat of the tree of life to continue living, even in the New Earth. God is the source of life, but the fruit of life is what perpetuates it. That’s how Jesus designed things.

The glory of God would destroy even the 144,000 in their sinful flesh. Sinful flesh, that is, our skin and physical stuff, cannot abide the glory of God. That’s why we’re given new bodies before we enter the presence of God.

More importantly, though, is the fact unforgiven sins, sins that have not been blotted out, prevent us from being in the presence of Jesus. I believe it is this aspect that prevents the wicked from being able to abide in His presence.

If Jesus were to stay clear of the wicked, if He left them to themselves, they would be able to live forever eating of the tree of life – theoretically. In reality they would probably destroy themselves within a short period of time.

JS - The bible said they were created without the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve could not discern what evil is and what good is. They just live an ongoing life based to how they were created.

If “Jesus clearly instructed Adam and Eve regarding Satan’s rebellion and intentions to deceive them,” then they knew what “evil” is because they understood that Satan’s rebellion is something against God’s will and that if he deceived them they would become in the same state as Satan, in rebellion against God.

This I think is not as what the bible said.

MM - James, if Jesus had not forewarned our first parents concerning Satan’s rebellion and plan to deceive them what would that say about Him? In my mind it would imply that He was uncaring. Besides, knowing about evil is not the same thing as knowing evil. There is a difference. Does it translate well in your native language?

TE – As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, it was Satan who was responsble for the curse, not Jesus. It's a pity to confuse these two.

MM – Yes, it is a pity. It is Jesus who gives evil angels permission to curse the earth for our sake.
Not the other way around.

You need to be really careful how you put this, MM. Certainly no creature can do anything without God permitting; no one can challenge God's power. But God's power has never been the issue. The issue involves God's character and the principles of His government. When you say that God, or Jesus, gives them permission, you seem to have the idea that what they do represents God's active will. But it doesn't. It represents God's permissive will.

You and I are in perfect agreement regarding God's permissive will. What needs to be discussed is God's active will.

Evil angels can do nothing without Jesus’ express permission. Apparently you disagree.

On what basis would you think I disagree with this? Do you think I believe God is impotent? What's your reasoning here?

Do you believe the devils are free to do as they please? Or, do you believe they are answerable to Jesus? Please answer these questions. Thank you.

To the extent possible, they are free to do as they please, in order that the the principles of the opposing government can be clearly visible. If God were to tie their hands at every pass, they could make the argument that they were never able to present their case. The horrible state of the affairs of this world are ample evidence of the free reign God has permitted them. Of course, we cannot discount God's protection and grace. As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, when the Spirit of God is withdrawn, then will be seen, as pictured in Revelation as the Seven Last Plagues, the true havoc that the principles of Satan will wreak.

TE - If you mean that God arbitrarily does something to change they system, that's not correct.

MM – I believe it is clear that Jesus “cursed” the earth because our first parents sinned.

Only in the sense that He recognized the curse, as the argument from Scripture (considering the original language and translations) and the Spirit of Prophecy (the statement I've quoted several times making clear that Christ did not plant the seeds of death in the system, but rather Satan). Jesus did not cause it to happen. God forbid!

If He hadn’t cursed the earth, if He hadn’t given evil angels permission to alter things, the laws of nature would have continued as originally designed.

Here it seems you are understanding God's cursing the earth as His allowing the evil angels to alter things, which is correct, although the expression "giving the evil angel's permission" is an unfortunate one, as it may imply that God was complicit in this.

Evil angels are responsible for the changes that have occurred on earth – not sin.

Both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy equate sin and Satan. This is an artificial distinction. The power of evil is the power of sin is the power of Satan.

TE - My question is how many times did Jesus say God was responsible for any bad thing, and the answer is 0. Jesus always ascribed these things to the devil, who properly deserves the "credit" for them.

MM – Please consider this example. Who caused Miriam’s leprosy?

Numbers
12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam [became] leprous, [white] as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, [she was] leprous.

Why not answer my question first? I've asked it several times now. How many times did Jesus say God was responsible for any bad thing? Another principle to bear in mind is that there is nothing we can know about God which was not revealed in the life and character of His Son while here in the flesh. What incident in Christ's life do you see revealing the characteristics of God you would see in the Numbers incident?

TE - This is a curious verse for you to quote. What do you think this means?

MM – In Matthew 10:34, 35 Jesus is explaining the results of His ministry. It’s similar to the parable of the soils and seed.

Yes, that's right. But why cite it? I agree with this principle. Jesus' purpose was to reveal the character of His Father. When this light was rejected, then dischord was the inevitable result.

TE - The cause of it?! Of course death is not the cause of sin. Why even make this point?

MM – I get the impression from what you’re saying that sin causes death like poison kills people.

This is not a bad analogy, but my question is, why are you suggesting that death causes sin? It was a strange point for you to make that death does not cause sin. I don't know why you would make this point.

I believe we die the first death because Jesus forbids us to eat of the tree of life.

I presented you a whole host of text from the Spirit of Prophecy and from Scripture making it as clear as sunlight that the cause of death is sin. Some of the texts even used these words: "the cause of death is sin." Yet you make no mention of these texts.

I've also made the point quite a number of times, which you have not acknowledged, that sin was responsible for the death of plants and animals; the eating of the tree of life was in now way involved in this.

The absence of its supernatural virtue is the cause of death.

Again, what of the plethora of Scripture and SOP texts which assert that sin is the cause of death? For example, Rom. 5 states that through one man sin came into the world, and by him death.

You're missing the theological implication of the views you are denying, IMO. Consider that, aside from the incident being recorded in Genesis, nowhere in Scripture is it mentioned that not eating of the tree of life caused death. Yet over and over again the point is made that sin results in death. This is an important point to understand. I don't see how we can understand the Gospel or the character of God correctly, without understanding this point, which is a reason I believe it is so often emphasized in inspiration.

Quote:

---

It is Satan's constant effort to misrepresent the character of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great controversy. (GC 569)

---

Its fruit and leaves are the antidote of death. Not even sinning can prevent them from perpetuating life. It appears to me that you disagree. Do you?

I completely disagree with your assertion that sin does not result in death. This disagrees with the Scripture texts and statements from the SOP which I cited.

8T 28
The fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden possessed supernatural virtue. To eat of it was to live forever. Its fruit was the antidote of death. Its leaves were for the sustaining of life and immortality. {8T 288.1}

TE - As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, had God in Christ not intervened immediately, they would have perished the very moment that they sinned (FW 21, 22). We live by the grace of God! To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life. Every breath we take is a gift of infinite value from our Creator and Redeemer.

MM – I agree. But none of this takes away from the fact we would life forever if Jesus gave us permission to regularly eat of the tree of life.

I think you're misreading the intent of the text. Let me give you a specific example. Consider the case of Cain and Abel. Do you think that Abel would not died had he eaten of the tree of life? Would it have been impossible for Cain to kill him? We read of the inhabitants before the flood, that their thoughts were continually evil. They were full of violence. They would have eventually killed each other, tree or no tree. And whoever survied would have had no desire to continue living. The tree of life has no power to overcome sin. If this were possible, the ministry of Jesus Christ would not have been necessary.

As John B. has been pointing out, the issues of sin are spiritual.

Please see Gen 3:20-22. The reason we gradually die is because the food we are allowed to eat sustains us for as long it does. Ultimately, though, Jesus gives and takes away our breath of life according to His will.

Please see my questions above. Also, if the only reason we physically die is by being deprived of the fruit from the tree of life, why did the plants and animals die? Why didn't they (the plants and animals) die sooner, since they did not partake of this fruit?

TE - God can involve Himself in the timing of when things happen, as related to our first death, but as far as the second death is concerned, if we die, it will the result of our own choice, not something God does to us.

MM – I agree. If we refuse to accept Jesus as our personal Saviour we will reap the rewards in the lake of fire. Jesus will not cause fire to rain down upon us if we choose Him.

You are putting this in what sounds to me to be an arbitrary way. My first thought in reading your statement is, "How nice of Him." Your writing gives the impression that the second death has nothing to do with the choice of the wicked, but is rather something imposed upon them by Jesus, as if Jesus wanted them to die while they wanted to live. But this is completely backwards! Jesus wants them to live, and they want to die. He allows them the result of *their* choice. (GC 542)

TE - Note that the very same thing which causes the death of the wicked is that which gives life to the righteous. This demonstrates conclusively that it is sin which causes their death, not something God does to them, because the difference is not in what God does, but in the result of the revelation of God's glory.

MM – I do not believe we can build entire theology on this one insight.

This is just one insight of many. The overriding insight, upon which we *can* build entire theology, is that when we have seen Jesus Christ, we have seen the Father.

Even though it's only one insight, you can't just ignore it. The fact of the matter is that the same thing which gives life to the righteous slays the wicked, which is the revelation of God's character. This is a crucial matter to keep in mind. In fact, this one principle explains a great deal of the Great Controversy.

There is more to it. We must also eat of the tree of life to continue living, even in the New Earth. God is the source of life, but the fruit of life is what perpetuates it. That’s how Jesus designed things.

One must also breath in the New Earth. This is how Jesus designed things. This is an irrelvant point as to the cause of the death of the wicked.

The glory of God would destroy even the 144,000 in their sinful flesh. Sinful flesh, that is, our skin and physical stuff, cannot abide the glory of God. That’s why we’re given new bodies before we enter the presence of God.

Even with new bodies they would be destroyed by the glory of God. You understand this to be the case, correct?

More importantly, though, is the fact unforgiven sins, sins that have not been blotted out, prevent us from being in the presence of Jesus. I believe it is this aspect that prevents the wicked from being able to abide in His presence.

You speak of sin as if it were something which existed apart from the human beings who commit the sin. The sin is in the mind and heart of the wicked, and *that* is why that can not abide God's presence. How could God possibly blot out their sin, unless they chose to repent? The blotting out of sin occurs in the hearts and minds of those who desire it. The books of heaven simply reflect the reality of God's work in men.

If Jesus were to stay clear of the wicked, if He left them to themselves, they would be able to live forever eating of the tree of life – theoretically. In reality they would probably destroy themselves within a short period of time.

Right! That's it! Sin is suicidal. You are correct. They *would* destroy themselves within a short period of time. This is why it is not necessary for God to destroy the wicked in some arbitrary fashion.

MM - James, if Jesus had not forewarned our first parents concerning Satan’s rebellion and plan to deceive them what would that say about Him? In my mind it would imply that He was uncaring.

Quote:

---

An excellent point.

---