TE: At any rate, God does not solve the sin problem by destroying sinners, but by destroying sin, a much more difficult problem.

MM: Here's the quote I had in mind: "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." {DA 107.4} Sin, apart from sinners, is not a substance that can be destroyed. It can only be destroyed by destroying sinners.

Destroying sin involves much, much more than the destruction of sinners, which is the point I made. If it were simply a matter of destroying a sinner, Satan could have been destroyed at the beginning, and that would have been the end of things. Destroying sin involves MUCH more than simply destroying the sinner.

You will notice, in the quote you provided, that it is the destruction of SIN which results in the destruction of the sinner, not the other way around.

TE: Your argument has been that the substance of sin, the "physical thing" which can be transmitted, is the body of the sinner. But this is not an adequate argument, because the body of the sinner does not get transmitted by Jesus' blood, which I'm sure you will admit.

MM: Actually, I meant to say that Jesus became sin for us, thus, He was equipped to transport our sin in His body and blood to heaven. "A body hast thou prepared me." (Heb 10:5) Neither the Father nor the Spirit are capable of bearing our sins in the most holy place because they do not have a human body. Sin can only reside in a created body. It cannot reside in the body of God.

Sin is a function of the mind, not the body. The body can, and does, suffer the consequences of sin, but it cannot sin. Only the mind can sin. Christ can bear our sins as a human being because He had a human mind. Of course, in order to have a human mind, He had to have a human body, to house the human brain in which the human mind functions, but that's a secondary (and unimportant) point.

TE: Summing up, the problem God faced was that He knew that sin results in death, but His followers didn't.

MM: We are not going to agree on this point. I believe God is the one who will execute sinners in the lake of fire, and you believe God will allow sin to do it.

I think Ellen White is very clear in the quote I provided as to what will happen. I think what she wrote is accurate and Biblical.

I know you like to quote the GC passage, which is very similar to what we read in Revelation, and I have responded in my posts as to how I think these visions relate to the DA 764 quote. However, I can't recall you're ever attempting an explanation of the DA 764 quote. It's as if it didn't exist (but it does).

There's also the DA 108 quote, which brings out an important principle, which is that the same thing which causes the death of the wicked imparts life to the righteous. This goes along with the point that Kevin made, from Scripture, regarding the meaning of fire.

There are also passages in the Great Controversy which bring out this same principle, such as GC 541-543 and GC 36, 37. Ellen White suggested we interpret her writings as we would Scripture, by comparing all the things she has written on a subject to come to a conclusion.

Well, I've mentioned quite a number of texts here, but just seeing you deal with DA 764, and DA 108, would be nice.

TE: Destroying sin involves much, much more than the destruction of sinners, which is the point I made.

MM: True. It was necessary for God to give Satan time to demonstrate the hideousness of sinning. However, had our First Parents resisted his initial temptation, God would have destroyed Satan right away. It would have been clear to the on-looking universe that sinning is incurable. God would have been justified in destroying the evil angels.

TE: You will notice, in the quote you provided, that it is the destruction of SIN which results in the destruction of the sinner, not the other way around.

MM: Again, sinning cannot exist without a host. The only way to destroy the results of sinning is to destroy sinners. God cannot destroy sin. The potential for FMAs choosing to sin will continue to exist throughout eternity. Of course they will not exercise their freedom to sin because they love God and hate sinning.

TE: Christ can bear our sins as a human being because He had a human mind. Of course, in order to have a human mind, He had to have a human body, to house the human brain in which the human mind functions, but that's a secondary (and unimportant) point.

MM: The importance of Jesus' human body cannot be overstressed. God has a mind and knows our sins, but it is not the same as Jesus having a human mind and body and knowing our sins. There is more to it than meets the eye.

TE: Well, I've mentioned quite a number of texts here, but just seeing you deal with DA 764, and DA 108, would be nice.

MM: DA 108 is referring to the second coming and not the lake of fire. The brightness of Jesus, like the latent glow on Moses' face, is indeed a consuming fire. DA 764 also describes the effects of God's brightness upon the unsaved, but it doesn't specify the lake of fire. It could have happened to Satan when he first sinned but God prevented it so that the on-looking universe could understand it.

Tom, please hear me. I agree with you that the glory of God is a consuming fire. Please believe me. I have always agreed with you. Even if we were to totally cease from sinning in this lifetime, God's unveiled presence would still consume us. Sinful flesh cannot survive in the presence of God. Not even Jesus, while inhabiting sinful flesh, could appear in the unveiled presence of God.

Where we disagree is concerning the "fire" God rains down upon the wicked after the Millennium. I believe this fire is literal fire. You believe it is the glory of God. On this we will probably never agree. But please do not continue to insist I haven't ever commented on the fire described in DA 108 or 764. I believe both the glory of God and literal fire will be employed to punish and destroy unsaved sinners in the lake of fire.

TE: Destroying sin involves much, much more than the destruction of sinners, which is the point I made.

MM: True. It was necessary for God to give Satan time to demonstrate the hideousness of sinning. However, had our First Parents resisted his initial temptation, God would have destroyed Satan right away. It would have been clear to the on-looking universe that sinning is incurable. God would have been justified in destroying the evil angels.

This is an extremely anthropomorphic way of looking at things. A vast number of worlds were created, all with trees at which Satan could tempt. Yet on this one planet you suggest that God would be justified in destroying Satan if the temptation were overcome. Why wasn't this sufficient in the millions of other worlds?

TE: You will notice, in the quote you provided, that it is the destruction of SIN which results in the destruction of the sinner, not the other way around.

MM: Again, sinning cannot exist without a host. The only way to destroy the results of sinning is to destroy sinners.

Sinners can be destroyed by the destruction of sin, since that's what the text says.

God cannot destroy sin.

Please read the text!



MM:The potential for FMAs choosing to sin will continue to exist throughout eternity. Of course they will not exercise their freedom to sin because they love God and hate sinning.

TE: Christ can bear our sins as a human being because He had a human mind. Of course, in order to have a human mind, He had to have a human body, to house the human brain in which the human mind functions, but that's a secondary (and unimportant) point.

MM: The importance of Jesus' human body cannot be overstressed. God has a mind and knows our sins, but it is not the same as Jesus having a human mind and body and knowing our sins. There is more to it than meets the eye.

Again, the mind is the salient point. Sin is an act of the will, which is a function of the mind, not the body.

TE: Well, I've mentioned quite a number of texts here, but just seeing you deal with DA 764, and DA 108, would be nice.

MM: DA 108 is referring to the second coming and not the lake of fire.

That's not important, is it, to the principles being expressed? The glory of God is a consuming fire to sin, wherever it is found. That's a principle true for any time, is it not? (as are the rest of the principles in the passage of DA 107-108).

The brightness of Jesus, like the latent glow on Moses' face, is indeed a consuming fire. DA 764 also describes the effects of God's brightness upon the unsaved, but it doesn't specify the lake of fire.

Sure it does. Just take a look at the Scripture passages she cites. It would be careful in the things you assert, to check if they are true or not before stating them so forcefully.

It could have happened to Satan when he first sinned but God prevented it so that the on-looking universe could understand it.

I'm not sure what "it" is, but this sounds similar to what I wrote.

Tom, please hear me. I agree with you that the glory of God is a consuming fire. Please believe me. I have always agreed with you. Even if we were to totally cease from sinning in this lifetime, God's unveiled presence would still consume us. Sinful flesh cannot survive in the presence of God. Not even Jesus, while inhabiting sinful flesh, could appear in the unveiled presence of God.

That's an interesting assertion. Do you have anything to back it up? That is, you are asserting that it is sinful flesh, and not sin, which causes us not to be able to abide in God's presence. I'm not aware of this being asserted anywhere in inspiration. I'd be interested in seeing such a text.

Where we disagree is concerning the "fire" God rains down upon the wicked after the Millennium. I believe this fire is literal fire. You believe it is the glory of God. On this we will probably never agree. But please do not continue to insist I haven't ever commented on the fire described in DA 108 or 764. I believe both the glory of God and literal fire will be employed to punish and destroy unsaved sinners in the lake of fire.

I don't disagree that literal fire will be involved, as you should well know, given how many posts you've read that I've written. When you write things like this, it makes me wonder how carefully you are reading the posts. I say this because this isn't something I've asserted once or twice, but very many times, and about which we've had long discussions.

I said I don't recall your having commented on DA 764, not that you haven't. I still don't know what your thoughts are on it, as you didn't express them, other than to ask me not to "insist" upon something I wasn't even suggesting, let alone "insist"! Here's what I wrote:



Please be more careful in your reading of posts. In just this one post, to which I am responding, are several examples of your stating things about what I wrote which are inaccurate.

That having been said, I'd still be interested in your thoughts on DA 764. You will notice, by taking a look at the context (as well as the Scriptures she quotes) that Ellen White *is* discussing the lake of fire and the destruction of the wicked.

TE: This is an extremely anthropomorphic way of looking at things. A vast number of worlds were created, all with trees at which Satan could tempt. Yet on this one planet you suggest that God would be justified in destroying Satan if the temptation were overcome. Why wasn't this sufficient in the millions of other worlds?

MM: Beings on “other worlds” were created before mankind and before the fall of Lucifer. They choose not to eat the forbidden fruit long before we were created and long before Lucifer fell. They made a decision not to side with Lucifer before he was banished to earth, before we were created. They are never going to reverse their decision. They are “eternally secure”. They agreed that Satan should be banished from heaven. They understand there is no hope for him. They believe he is worthy of death. The more they watch him on earth the more they are convinced he is worthy of death. Check out these quotes:


TE: Sinners can be destroyed by the destruction of sin, since that's what the text says.

MM: Sinning and sinners are two different aspects of sin, right? Sin, apart from a sinner sinning, is not the problem. Sinning is the problem. Sin, as an idea, is no problem. It will exist for eternity. Therefore, to destroy the results of sinning God must destroy sinners and restore paradise lost. Sinning and sinners are inseparable.

TE: Again, the mind is the salient point. Sin is an act of the will, which is a function of the mind, not the body.

MM: We both agree mind and body are inseparable. We cannot have one without the other. However, it was necessary for Jesus to inherit sinful flesh so He could become sin. Having a mind was not enough. He needed a human mind and body to become sin.

TE: “Not even Jesus, while inhabiting sinful flesh, could appear in the unveiled presence of God.” That's an interesting assertion. Do you have anything to back it up? That is, you are asserting that it is sinful flesh, and not sin, which causes us not to be able to abide in God's presence. I'm not aware of this being asserted anywhere in inspiration. I'd be interested in seeing such a text.

MM: It stands to reason. Where do we read of Jesus, while dwelling in sinful flesh, being in the presence of God’s unveiled glory? We don’t. Why not? 1) Because sin cannot exist in the presence of God, and 2) Jesus became sin. Thus, while here, Jesus was unable to be in God’s unveiled presence. Sinful flesh cannot abide in the unveiled presence of God.

TE: That having been said, I'd still be interested in your thoughts on DA 764. You will notice, by taking a look at the context (as well as the Scriptures she quotes) that Ellen White *is* discussing the lake of fire and the destruction of the wicked.

MM: “I agree with you that the glory of God is a consuming fire.” The fire of God’s glory consumes sins in sinners in one of two ways: 1) God’s glory motivates people to cease sinning, thus sin is destroyed in the sinner, or 2) God’s glory will destroy sinners with their sins if they refuse to accept Jesus as their personal Savior and cease sinning.

I do not believe the fire rained down upon the unsaved at the end of time is the glory of God. I believe it is a different source of fire. However, I also happen to believe the fire of God’s glory can cause combustible material, like flesh and rubbish, to ignite and burn up. Do you?

By the way, I understand you believe there will be literal fire at the end of time. I didn’t post anything that indicates otherwise. In the following quote, which I have enumerated, Sister White makes it clear that the fire God rains down upon the wicked causes them and the rubbish of the earth to burn up until there is nothing left to burn. In the Bible, this fire is compared to the fire that burned up Sodom, which was a different source of fire than God's glory.

The following quotes teach that the wages of sin is death, that pardon does not negate the death penalty. Jesus had to die for us because someone has to die for our sins. There is no way around it.

AG 139
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7}

TE: This is an extremely anthropomorphic way of looking at things. A vast number of worlds were created, all with trees at which Satan could tempt. Yet on this one planet you suggest that God would be justified in destroying Satan if the temptation were overcome. Why wasn't this sufficient in the millions of other worlds?

MM: Beings on “other worlds” were created before mankind and before the fall of Lucifer. They choose not to eat the forbidden fruit long before we were created and long before Lucifer fell. They made a decision not to side with Lucifer before he was banished to earth, before we were created. They are never going to reverse their decision. They are “eternally secure”. They agreed that Satan should be banished from heaven. They understand there is no hope for him. They believe he is worthy of death. The more they watch him on earth the more they are convinced he is worthy of death.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. My point was that if a race not falling, although being tempted, was reason enough to destroy Satan, there was no need to wait for man to do so, since Satan had been encountered by many other races besides ours. And there is no reason why man's not falling to temptation would justify God's killing Satan. Why do you think that makes any sense?

I'm also not sure where you are getting the idea that the beings from other worlds chose not to eat of the forbidden tree long before Lucifer was created. Even if that were true, you can see from the quotes that Lucifer was able to tempt them at the tree, after he fell, so the unfallen worlds had to confront Satan just like man did. If overcoming Satan is reason enough to destroy him, then that had already happened before man was created.

TE: Sinners can be destroyed by the destruction of sin, since that's what the text says.

MM: Sinning and sinners are two different aspects of sin, right?

What?

Sin, apart from a sinner sinning, is not the problem.

Sin, apart from a sinner sinning, doesn't exist.

Sinning is the problem. Sin, as an idea, is no problem. It will exist for eternity.

Sin will be destroyed, and NOT exist for all eternity. That's what the Great Controversy is about, eliminating sin.

Therefore, to destroy the results of sinning God must destroy sinners and restore paradise lost. Sinning and sinners are inseparable.

No, the problem cannot be solved by destroying sinners, which I've explained at length in the previous posts. If the problem could have been solved that way, Satan could have been destroyed at the very beginning. SIN must be destroyed. The problem must be met at the root.

Sin gets its power as God's character is misunderstood. This is how Satan deceived both angel and man. In order to set things right, God's true character had to be revealed. In Christ, we see the truth about God (we being both man and unfallen beings). That truth is what wins the Great Controversy.

After all have seen the truth about God, God can allow Satan and his followers to "reap that which they have sown" and suffer "the inevitable consequences of sin" as discussed in DA 764.

Sin will have been destroyed because selfishness, which is the root of sin, will be gone. As sin leaves, so will suffering, misery and death, as these things cannot exist apart from sin.

TE: Again, the mind is the salient point. Sin is an act of the will, which is a function of the mind, not the body.

MM: We both agree mind and body are inseparable. We cannot have one without the other. However, it was necessary for Jesus to inherit sinful flesh so He could become sin. Having a mind was not enough. He needed a human mind and body to become sin.

What do you mean in saying Christ "became sin"? What is your idea as to what it means to say that Christ bore our sins? You seem to have an understanding that sin is a physical substance that in some mysterious way was infused into Christ's body (or into His blood(?)). Am I understanding you correctly?

TE: “Not even Jesus, while inhabiting sinful flesh, could appear in the unveiled presence of God.” That's an interesting assertion. Do you have anything to back it up? That is, you are asserting that it is sinful flesh, and not sin, which causes us not to be able to abide in God's presence. I'm not aware of this being asserted anywhere in inspiration. I'd be interested in seeing such a text.

MM: It stands to reason. Where do we read of Jesus, while dwelling in sinful flesh, being in the presence of God’s unveiled glory? We don’t.

Using this same "logic" we could just as well "reason" that Christ could not have appeared in the presence of Mars, since we don't read of that taking place anywhere.

Why not? 1) Because sin cannot exist in the presence of God, and 2) Jesus became sin. Thus, while here, Jesus was unable to be in God’s unveiled presence. Sinful flesh cannot abide in the unveiled presence of God.

Please explain what the phrases you are using mean. What do you mean by saying Jesus became sin? When did Jesus become sin? Did He become sin when He took sinful flesh? Is the reason that Jesus could not dwell in God's presence because He became sin (as you say here) or because He took sinful flesh (which you said before)?

TE: That having been said, I'd still be interested in your thoughts on DA 764. You will notice, by taking a look at the context (as well as the Scriptures she quotes) that Ellen White *is* discussing the lake of fire and the destruction of the wicked.

MM: “I agree with you that the glory of God is a consuming fire.” The fire of God’s glory consumes sins in sinners in one of two ways: 1) God’s glory motivates people to cease sinning, thus sin is destroyed in the sinner, or 2) God’s glory will destroy sinners with their sins if they refuse to accept Jesus as their personal Savior and cease sinning.

I do not believe the fire rained down upon the unsaved at the end of time is the glory of God. I believe it is a different source of fire. However, I also happen to believe the fire of God’s glory can cause combustible material, like flesh and rubbish, to ignite and burn up. Do you?

By the way, I understand you believe there will be literal fire at the end of time. I didn’t post anything that indicates otherwise.

You wrote the following:



That sounded to me like you were saying I didn't believe the fire to which destroys the wicked to be literal.

In the following quote, which I have enumerated, Sister White makes it clear that the fire God rains down upon the wicked causes them and the rubbish of the earth to burn up until there is nothing left to burn. In the Bible, this fire is compared to the fire that burned up Sodom, which was a different source of fire than God's glory.

I still haven't seen an explanation of DA 764. DA 764 says the following:



If the wicked are killed by literal fire, then that IS an act of God, and is NOT the result of their placing themselves so out of harmony with God this His glory becomes to them a consuming fire. If the wicked are destroyed by the glory of God, then they are NOT destroyed by literal fire.

Also her whole point wouldn't make any sense. She says that if God allowed Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, and it would it would have appeared that this was due to something God did to them rather than being the result of their own choice. Now if God kills them by burning them with literal fire, then how could there possibly be the confusion Ellen White is talking about? It would be *obvious* that the wicked died because God killed them by burning them. How would waiting until the death of Christ make it any less confusing that their death was not caused by an act on God's part, as opposed to the result of their choice? Especially if their death is in reality caused by God?!

Some more problems I see with your view, as I'm understanding it, is that it would require God's supernaturally keeping them alive so that He could torture them by burning them alive, which is a monstrous thing to suggest. This depicts an unimaginably cruel portrait of our Creator. I can't help but thing that the difficulties you have spoken of in another thread are related to these ideas. How we view God has in intimate connection to how easy we perceive the yoke of following him to be, and how heavy we perceive His burden to be.

Another problem is how Satan could be destroyed by literal fire, given that he is an angel.

Yet another problem is why God would do such a horrible thing as burn someone in something like molten lava, supernaturally keeping them alive, and to think that this is somehow "just".

1. That beings from “other worlds” chose not to rebel with Satan is evident from the fact they were not banished to earth with him.

2. That Satan tried to persuade them to rebel with him is evident from the quotes I posted in my last post. Their decision was final. No further temptations would have led them astray.

3. That they were tested with a forbidden tree is evident from the same list of quotes. However, the quotes do not indicate whether or not Satan tried to deceive them at the forbidden tree.

4. Although they felt Satan was worthy of death, it is clear they did not understand the relationship between sinning and dying. They needed more evidence.

5. Had man successfully resisted Satan at the forbidden tree, he would have been made eternally secure. Satan would have had no one else to tempt. Watching the evil angels squabble among themselves would have served no purpose. The great controversy would have ended.

6. “I'm also not sure where you are getting the idea that the beings from other worlds chose not to eat of the forbidden tree long before Lucifer was created.” I never said such a thing.


Sin (as an idea, as a concept) will exist throughout eternity. Sinning, however, will not happen again.


As stated above, I believe sin as a concept will exist forever. It is sinning that will have been destroyed forever. Not that it isn’t theoretically possible, but because FMAs will never choose to sin again. They do not lose the freedom or ability to sin. As such, sin will exist throughout eternity. It's all about semantics, isn't it?


I cannot explain how Jesus became sin. The Bible says Jesus became sin. I believe it. I don’t need to be able to explain it right now. I realize that is unsatisfactory for you.


1. Jesus could not have appeared on Mars for the simple reason sinful flesh cannot withstand it.

2. Jesus became sin when He became human, when He assumed sinful flesh. Both 1) being sin and 2) having sinful flesh made it impossible for Jesus to be in the unveiled presence of God. Sinning and having sinful flesh also makes it impossible for us to be in the unveiled presence of God.

What do you believe? What is the nature of the fire that God will rain down upon unsaved sinners at the end of time? I’m talking specifically about the “fire” in the following quote:

Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:10. The earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire. It is the time of the judgment and perdition of ungodly men--"the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion." Isaiah 34:8. {GC 672.2}


1. The unfallen beings did not completely understand the nature of Satan’s rebellion. They knew somehow he was wrong, but they needed more time to watch it unfold.

2. Had God destroyed Satan before it was clear to the loyal beings why he was worthy of punishment and death they would have served God out of fear.

3. They are not unclear as to how Satan will die. They just need more time to be certain that he is worthy of death, that there is nothing wrong with law and love and government of God.

4. I disagree with how you explain why the loyal beings would not have understood the punishment and death of Satan. They understood enough to know he deserved to be banished to earth. They understood enough to help Jesus fight him and drive him out of heaven.

5. How sinners suffer in proportion to their sinfulness is a mystery. How some beings can burn longer than others is also a mystery. It doesn’t make God out to be a monster. Nor does it prevent me from loving God and wearing His yoke.

6. Satan feared for his life during the Flood. How much more fearful is fire? Angels are not immortal. They are not fire proof.

7. Holy angels rejoice over the destruction of the wicked during the seven last plagues. They even pray for a double portion of suffering. Obviously there is something righteous about rejoicing over the punishment of the wicked.


8. "I still haven't seen an explanation of DA 764." The fire of God’s glory consumes sins in sinners in one of two ways:

1) God’s glory motivates people to cease sinning, thus sin is destroyed in the sinner.

2) God’s glory will destroy sinners with their sins if they refuse to accept Jesus as their personal Savior and cease sinning.

I do not believe the fire rained down upon the unsaved at the end of time is the glory of God. I believe it is a different source of fire. Just exactly what part the glory of God plays in the lake of fire is not clear to me. Therefore, I do not have an answer for you regarding DA 764.

However, I also happen to believe the fire of God’s glory can cause combustible material, like flesh and rubbish, to ignite and burn up. Do you?

GC 673
While the earth was wrapped in the fire of destruction, the righteous abode safely in the Holy City. Upon those that had part in the first resurrection, the second death has no power. While God is to the wicked a consuming fire, He is to His people both a sun and a shield. Revelation 20:6; Psalm 84:11. {GC 673.3}

There are two types of fire mentioned above. One is a threat to the safety of the redeemed who must therefore remain in the city to avoid being destroyed. The other is the consuming fire of God's glory, which is not a threat to the redeemed.