Good points John. Sin takes that which is good, the law, and ordained to life, and instead works death, which shows the sinfulness (destructive power) of sin. Excellent.

Arthur, you've got some good thoughts there! Especially one in particular, which I'll come back to next post.

Quote:

---

We are subject to death because of sin. And sin's strength stems from God's law. And God's law is just a transcript of His character.

---

Let's consider the statement that sin's strength stems from God's law. To say that the law is a transcript of God's character is simply to say that it explains the principles of unselfish love, because God is love.

God's law is a law of love, a law which gives life, when followed. These are the principles of God's government, which are the only principles by which man, or any other created being, or even God Himself, can be happy, sound, and live. They are principles of unselfishness, of self-sacrificing love.

When one varies from these principles, and instead lives for self, *death must follow*. This is not something arbitrarily imposed by God. There's simply no possible way the selfishness can lead to anything but pain, misery and death. That's the very nature of selfishness. Death cannot be separated from selfishness.

Quote:

---

Sin makes us unfit to be in God's presence. Separated from the Source of life, we are unable to endure His glory.

So, the same glory that saves the repentant will destroy the wicked. God is not passive in this process.

---

The sense that God is not passive is simply in the sense that God is God. That is, God does not do anything different than He normally does. He is the same gracious, kind, simpathetic, merciful, loving Father that He always is. The glory of God is His character, and His character was perfectly revealed by Jesus Christ. When we see Jesus, we've seen the Father. God will be no different than what Jesus Christ was. Indeed, He can't be, because Jesus Christ revealed exactly what God is like. Not some of the time, but all of the time, because just as Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so is the Father the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Consider the reaction of the wicked when Jesus comes again. They call for the mountains to fall on them because they cannot bear to see the face of their redeemer, who (still) loves them so.

Here's a statement from the Great Controversy:

Quote:

---

Those who have chosen Satan as their leader and have been controlled by his power are not prepared to enter the presence of God. Pride, deception, licentiousness, cruelty, have become fixed in their characters. Can they enter heaven to dwell forever with those whom they despised and hated on earth? Truth will never be agreeable to a liar; meekness will not satisfy self-esteem and pride; purity is not acceptable to the corrupt; disinterested love does not appear attractive to the selfish. What source of enjoyment could heaven offer to those who are wholly absorbed in earthly and selfish interests?...

A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them. The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God.(GC 542)

---

The wicked can't stand to the purity, holiness and peace which is God. The can't stand unselfishness. God, by loving them unselfishly, is a consuming fire to them.

Quote:

---

The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. (DA 764)

---

As strange as it sounds, God destroys the wicked by loving them. By the way, love is personfied as fire in Scripture. Ty Gibson talks about this in one of his books, either "Shades of Grace" or "See God With New Eyes" if you happen to have them. If you're interested, I can try to find the page number.

You're bringing out a lot of issues here, good ones, so I'm going to split my response into several parts.

Deeper than that, when we have correct views about God's character, our natural depravity recoils from Him. That's why people tend to make God into their own image, so that He is not so repugnant to their inborn selfishness.

Awesome!!! We see God according to our faulty character. To the pure, God shows Himself pure. The to froward (crooked), God shows Himself froward. (Ps. 18) The worse we make God look, the less bad we look by contrast. This is exactly why we have such a problem seeing His goodness.

Therefore, I do not believe that a full revelation of God is all it takes to turn from sin. Lucifer had a pretty good view of God, but it didn't do him any good.

It was when Lucifer chose to believe a lie about God that his troubles began. Similarly with Adam and Eve. Believing the truth about God is the path towards healing.

Beyond knowing the facts about God, we need a transformation of nature such that we can co-exist peacefully with God.

The transformation of nature comes from knowing the truth about God. This is exactly what the cross does. Notice the following explanation of how one is saved from the Desire of Ages:

Quote:

---

How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29. 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 175, 176)

---

The transformation of nature *follows* the revelation of the truth about God revealed at the cross. The love shining from the cross is what makes the process work. This love is the power that accomplishes everything, revealing God to man. This is why the Spirit of Prophecy tells us that the whole purpose of Christ's mission was to reveal God to us so that we may be set right with Him. Revealing God results in our being set right with Him, and our natures being transformed (as described in the above paragraph), unless resisted.

Please consider the following statement also from the Desire of Ages:

Quote:

---

There was no more that God could do to save him (Satan). But man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God. (DA 762)

---

There is hope for man in a knowledge of God's character. By beholding His character, man can be drawn back to God. This is just what Jesus Christ accomplished:

Quote:

---

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.(1 Pet. 3:18)

---

In Christ crucified, we behold God's character, and are drawn back to God.

Therefore, I look at Christ's work as two distinct parts: to reveal God's glory to man, and to restore God's glory in man. One informs, the other transforms.

But parts are accomplished in exactly the same way: by revealing God's character. This is why the Spirit of Prohecy says that the whole purpose of Christ's mission is the revelation of God's character. This is all man needs (and the rest of the universe as well).

Quote.
Therefore, I do not believe that a full revelation of God is all it takes to turn from sin. Lucifer had a pretty good view of God, but it didn't do him any good.
Unquote.

No, he hadn’t.

Lucifer has no knowledge that his rebellion would brought Christ down to earth to die.

He has no clue that the love of God might go so far as to sacrifice him self till death.

He didn’t know the depth and width and height of the love of God.

In His love

James S

I'm still thinking about your "legal problem" comments. How do you explain the legal imagery found in the Bible? Especially the substitutionary concepts found in the sanctuary?

I'm not sure what legal imagery you're referring to. You'd have to tell me explicitly what you're thinking of. You may not be aware of this, but there are a number of theories of the atonement. Only one of them is penal substitution.

The one I think is closest to the theory Ellen White presents, which might be called the Great Controversy theory, is one which has been referred to as "Christus Victor Narrative." The Eastern Othordox church has held to a similar idea. See, for example, http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm. Here they call it "the ransom theory" which is a widely misunderstood concept, but we can go into that some other time.

Anyway what happened is that for almost a thousand years the Christian church new little or nothing of a penal substitution theory of the atonement until Anselm, a Roman Catholic, developed it in the end of the eleventh century. Just a little before this point, the Eastern Orthodox church split from the Roman church, so they did not bring with them Anselm's theory. It became entrenched in Roman Catholicism, and kept was developed by the Protestants during the Reformation. Gustuv Aulen, in his book "Christus Victor," argues that Luther's theory of the atonement was not legal, althought he used legal language at times, but was in harmony with the Christus Victor theme. I think the same thing is true of Ellen White. She used legal language, which is the only language the Protestitism of her time understood (and is largely true in our time as well), but her meaning is not the same as many others, which is made clear by the statements I've been quoting (such as, "the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, in order to set men right with God." This is the Christus Victor theme, not the penal substitution theory.)

If you're interested in considering this more, please take a look at this site: http://sharktacos.com/God/cross_intro.shtml

In closing, for now, I'll mention that nowhere did Jesus Christ suggest that He died for anything resembling the penal substitution view; that is, to give God the legal right to forgive us, or to appease His wrath. His theme was always the same as what I've been emphasizing from the Spirit of Prophecy: He came to reveal the Father. Everything about Jesus, including His death (especially His death) was involved in this.

Tom

Tom, that SOP quote regarding Jacob's preservation in God's presence is also notable for its saying that the wicked, even while on earth have always been slain if they came presumptuously into God's presence. The wicked are still wicked when they commit wickedness under cover. God sees it then but usually allows it to go unpunished in the hope that they will repent. But by times, even in this life, God calls them to account and sets limits to their course of action. Sometime he does that by arranging circumstances, as in the case of Dathan and Abiram, so that the wicked demonstrate their presumption in His direct presence and they are slain. So I don’t doubt that when EGW says the wicked are ‘always’ slain when they come presumptuously before God she is correct. But isn’t that at odds with your view? Your view as I understand it is that sin, taking its natural course is what kills, not God. That is only half of the truth though. It is God himself who sets the limits of sin, by for example bringing the rebellious and presumptuous in the church to judgment. Annanias and Saphira are NT examples. In other words, the course of sin is limited not only by the character of God but by the person of God – by God himself. This is good news because it means He is directly involved in the great controversy at a personal level; that sin is not merely taking its course. If sin naturally takes its course without the intervention of God wouldn’t the next step be to say that salvation naturally takes its course as well.

It is dangerous to rob God of His prerogative to bring our works into judgement at the times and seasons He appoints, and place His character above His person. His character defines sin, but His person brings our works into judgement. The Scripture and common sense combine the two as the agents of judgment. What licence do we have to divorce the two? God Himself is a great King according to scripture. It is not His character that is king, it is His person containing His character that is King.

So, your position that sin, defined rightly as anything selfish and contrary to God's character, is the only thing that kills is correct but incomplete and therefore misleading. The same deficiency shows up in your view of the lake of fire. I agree with Will. If the lake of fire was only a revelation of the character of God, (and I agree that it is that) it would not cleanse the earth of its physical impurities and prepare it for the new creation. So while it is probably correct to say the more important dimension of the lake of fire is the revelation of truth, we must also let scripture take its intended meaning and acknowledge that this revelation of truth is no ordinary revelation and is sufficient to burn not only into hearts and minds but to also consume the physical. It is this physical aspect, which we acknowledge is less important than the spiritual, that your theory doesn’t account for.

A similar deficiency is evident in your presenting the atonement of Christ as a revelation of the character of God and not acknowledging its personal, substitutionary nature. You claim to present a loving picture of the character of God, but love is defined by both mercy and justice, not in a vacuum. This mercy and justice is that of a Person. It is very true that the character of God is what entitles Him to rule; in the symbol of the sanctuary the throne of God represented by the mercy seat is founded four-square on the ark containing the law representing His character. You err in turning this image upside down and unwittingly placing the ark, or character of God above His thrown or person. In scripture, God is seated in government on the foundation of his character, but not in subordination to it. Your view, which seems to be to the contrary, is IMO a result of presenting only one side of these things, therefore, I ask you again, aren't you doing violence to the very truth, the character of God, you claim to be contending for?

Nice post Mark. I'm going to respond in two ways. One is to respond to your points directly with some comments in my own words. The other will be to quote Ty Gibon at length in a couple of posts following. If I remember right, you have made some favorable statements regarding him, and I'm basically trying to present the same ideas he does, but he is more eloquent than I am, and perhaps better able to get the thoughts across.

Tom, that SOP quote regarding Jacob's preservation in God's presence is also notable for its saying that the wicked, even while on earth have always been slain if they came presumptuously into God's presence. The wicked are still wicked when they commit wickedness under cover. God sees it then but usually allows it to go unpunished in the hope that they will repent. But by times, even in this life, God calls them to account and sets limits to their course of action. Sometime he does that by arranging circumstances, as in the case of Dathan and Abiram, so that the wicked demonstrate their presumption in His direct presence and they are slain. So I don’t doubt that when EGW says the wicked are ‘always’ slain when they come presumptuously before God she is correct. But isn’t that at odds with your view? Your view as I understand it is that sin, taking its natural course is what kills, not God. That is only half of the truth though. It is God himself who sets the limits of sin, by for example bringing the rebellious and presumptuous in the church to judgment. Annanias and Saphira are NT examples. In other words, the course of sin is limited not only by the character of God but by the person of God – by God himself. This is good news because it means He is directly involved in the great controversy at a personal level; that sin is not merely taking its course. If sin naturally takes its course without the intervention of God wouldn’t the next step be to say that salvation naturally takes its course as well.

These are very good questions Mark, and it would take a very long post indeed to deal with all the issues you are bringing up. I'm going to let most of them go, but will deal with them indirectly by presenting Ty Gibson's ideas in the subsequent posts. But I'm not trying to duck your excellent questions and points. It's a big subject, and I'm just trying to deal with it in a way that doesn't make the response too long. Please return to any point that you feel hasn't been adequately dealt with, after my posts, and I will be glad to readdress them.

I'll comment on this paragraph in a subsequent post, dealing with the two paragraphs from the Desire of Ages.

It is dangerous to rob God of His prerogative to bring our works into judgement at the times and seasons He appoints, and place His character above His person.

His character defines sin, but His person brings our works into judgement. The Scripture and common sense combine the two as the agents of judgment. What licence do we have to divorce the two? God Himself is a great King according to scripture. It is not His character that is king, it is His person containing His character that is King.

This makes it sound to me like the problems which come because of our sin are due to arbitrary actions on God's part, where He is selective severe and harsh. It seems to me that God was trying to demonstrate that God is not like this. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, and the Father is just like Him. That which causes the problem in our lives is sin.

You've made an interesting comment that the view I'm presenting would place God's character above His person. But I see no conflict here. It's not that His character is above His person, but that His person always acts in harmony with His character. God *is* love, and love is defined by the life and character of Jesus Christ, ever the same, as well as the Ten Commandments. 1 Cor. 13 also provides a good description of love (agape): "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

This describes God's character. God is patient and kind. God keeps no record of wrongs. God always protects, always trusts, always perseveres.

So, your position that sin, defined rightly as anything selfish and contrary to God's character, is the only thing that kills is correct but incomplete and therefore misleading.

Isn't your statement here self-contradictory? If sin is the "only thing that kills," in your words, and this is a correct statement, how can that be incomplete? It seems to me that you are asserting in stating this is incomplete that the statement that sin is "the only thing that kills" (to use your words) is *not* correct.

The same deficiency shows up in your view of the lake of fire. I agree with Will. If the lake of fire was only a revelation of the character of God, (and I agree that it is that) it would not cleanse the earth of its physical impurities and prepare it for the new creation.

If you have read what I've written in the past, you will see that I do not disagree with this. I think that Rosangela's idea on this is possible. It's also possible that the same forces which caused the earth's crust to give way, leading to the flood, will cause the earth's crust to give way again, leading to it becoming a lake of fire, a molten mass. What I disagree with is the idea that God causes the wicked to be swimming in molten lava and supernatually keeps them alive so that He can boil them alive, torturing them, for perhaps many days.

So while it is probably correct to say the more important dimension of the lake of fire is the revelation of truth

What is this truth? Is that truth that God will torture you with a torture worse than the Roman church or Nazi Germany could devise, and then kill you if you don't do what He says? Or is the truth that to sin, wherever it is found, God's presence is a consuming fire; that the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will slay the wicked? It's important that we identify just what the truth that is being revealed here is, as it impacts how we perceive God's character, which is crucial.

, we must also let scripture take its intended meaning

I agree with this. Scripture should take it's intedended meaning. What is it's indended meaning? That's the whole question, isn't it?

and acknowledge that this revelation of truth is no ordinary revelation and is sufficient to burn not only into hearts and minds but to also consume the physical. It is this physical aspect, which we acknowledge is less important than the spiritual, that your theory doesn’t account for.

First of all, the theory is not mine. As Kevin H. pointed out, it's been within Adventism for over a hundred years, and there have been many proponents of it. Secondly, the theory does account for the physical aspect. I have never denied that the wicked will be physically destroyed by fire or that the earth will be purified by fire.

A similar deficiency is evident in your presenting the atonement of Christ as a revelation of the character of God and not acknowledging its personal, substitutionary nature.

I don't disagree that the atonement of Christ was either personal or substituationary. I disagree that it was substitutionary in a penal arbitrary way, but not that it was substitutionary or personal. Ty Gibson's comments will go into this in detail.

You claim to present a loving picture of the character of God, but love is defined by both mercy and justice, not in a vacuum. This mercy and justice is that of a Person. It is very true that the character of God is what entitles Him to rule; in the symbol of the sanctuary the throne of God represented by the mercy seat is founded four-square on the ark containing the law representing His character. You err in turning this image upside down and unwittingly placing the ark, or character of God above His thrown or person.

Again, I see no contradiction between God's character and His person. God, in His person, never acts contrary to His character.

In scripture, God is seated in government on the foundation of his character, but not in subordination to it. Your view, which seems to be to the contrary, is IMO a result of presenting only one side of these things, therefore, I ask you again, aren't you doing violence to the very truth, the character of God, you claim to be contending for?

Only if it were true that God at times acts contrary to His character.

The following is the quote from 107, 108 of the Desire of Ages we've been talking about. I'd look to look at this in detail.

"I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance," said John; "but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." <==1 Matt. 3:11, R. V., margin. The prophet Isaiah had declared that the Lord would cleanse His people from their iniquities "by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." <==2 The word of the Lord to Israel was, "I will turn My hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin." Isa. 4:4; 1:25. <==3 To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. <==4

In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. <==5

Jacob, after his night of wrestling with the Angel, exclaimed, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Gen. 32: 30. <==6

Jacob had been guilty of a great sin in his conduct toward Esau; but he had repented. His transgression had been forgiven, and his sin purged; therefore he could endure the revelation of God's presence. But wherever men came before God while willfully cherishing evil, they were destroyed. At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed "with the Spirit of His mouth," and destroyed "with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess. 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First notice that Ellen White is brining out how fire represents how sin and God interact. God is a consuming fire to sin, *wherever found*. This is the underlying principle, which Ellen White brings out with the quotes marked 1 through 4. Note that it is "wherever found," so this is not a selective work by God, which seemed to me to the point you were making. What I see her presenting instead is a universal principle, which is that to sin "wherever found," God is a consuming fire. She continues explaining the universal principle with (5).

She then applies this principle to Jacob, who said "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (6). How is it that Jacob could endure God's presence? She explains that it is because Jacob had repented of His sin.

I get the impression from you wrote that your view is that God gets angry, and so selective strikes out, sometimes against one, or sometimes against another, so that we can see what our final end will be, which is that God will strike out at us, out of His anger, in the final destruction. Instead of this picture what I see is that to sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire, and those who identify themselves with sin by clining to it will be destroyed when they come into God's presence. I don't see God in any way acting arbitrarily here. That is, He doesn't impose some special judgment to destroy, but the destruction is a result of the universal principle that to sin, wherever it is found, God is a consuming fire. The same thing that will happen at the final judgment is the same thing that happened in the Old Testatement. There is no special action of God's part to be selective, but the principle is worked out whenever it occurs.

Note she points out that "wherever" men came before God while willfully cherishing evil, they were destroyed. Why? Because God was ticked off? Of God wanted to teach a lesson? No, because to sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire. This is not something that God turns on and off. This is something which is.

Finally we see the principle applied to the destruction of the wicked. "The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked." The same thing which gives life to the righteous, which is the truth about His character (to know God is eternal life), results in the death of the wicked, because they cannot abide God, the consuming fire of sin, wherever it is found.

TE: Christ died to settle the Great Controversy. He made clear the principles of God's government vs. the principles of the enemy's, and made manifest His character vs. the character of the enemy.

MM: If Jesus settled the GC on the cross why, then, is it still going on?

TE: It is because of the cross that sin will not arise a second time! It is not because of an arbitrary decree of God.

MM: The reason why God is able to say with certainty that sin will not arise a second time is because He knows the end from the beginning. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

JB: It is then evident that the only reason sin will not rise again is because the great ‘law of love’ will be established in each heart, in so that the principle which is at war with it shall never rise again. This begins here and now. Therefore the true revelation of the character of God is the gospel unto salvation from that sin and death, which is at war with it. For this reason and for this cause Christ suffered the stripes and gave his life.

MM: This love, which was planted in Lucifer and Adam and Eve did not prevent them from choosing to sin. The law of love does not prevent anyone from choosing to sin. Nor does it enable God to predict the future outcome of free moral agents. It is God’s ability to know the end from the beginning that enables Him to the future with perfect clarity.

DF: The sin problem will consequently be forever removed, never to happen again.

MM: The conditions that made sinning possible in the first place will continue to exist throughout eternity – namely, free moral agents (FMA). God is restoring paradise lost through the plan of salvation. Once sin and death and sinners have been eliminated in the lake of fire things will be restored. Which means FMAs will still possess the ability to sin and rebel.

The fact they will never choose to sin is true because God knows the end from the beginning – not because they are better built or equipped than Lucifer or Adam or Eve. The idea that having an intimate knowledge of sin and death makes restored FMAs less capable or less willing to sin and rebel suggests that there was something wrong or lacking in Lucifer and Adam and Eve which led to their terrible demise. Such a suggestion implicates God.

We cannot explain why Lucifer or Adam or Eve sinned so as to give a reason why they did. Nor can we explain why restored FMAs will never choose to sin again in the future. All we know is that they will never choose to sin again. We know this because God knows the end from the beginning. It is not because they are in any way better built or equipped than those who rebelled before them.