The words sin, sins, sinned, sinning, and sinful have different meanings. "Sin is the transgression of the law." I believe this will be true throughout eternity. The scars of Jesus will forever remind us that sin is the transgression of the law. Sinning will cease, but the fact sin is the transgression of the law will never cease. Your answer makes it clear you believe this truth will cease to exist in heaven.


"To be clear, I'm not talking about the *how* here." Tom, please note what I posted: "I cannot explain how Jesus became sin." That He became sin is clear. What that means is "beyond" our ability to explain.


Sinful flesh is where sin abides and resides. Eliminate sinners and their sins cease to exist. There has never been a being who inherited sinful flesh nature who was without sin. Jesus became sin for us therefore He was not without sin. True, He never committed a sin, but He became sin. Moses was unable to appear in God's unveiled presence. Why? Because it would have destroyed Him. The same is true is of Sister White. She was unable to see the form of the Father because it would have destroyed her.


Yes, Jesus became sin when He became human, when He inherited sinful flesh nature. Sin is inherent in sinful flesh nature. Sinful flesh nature is not the same thing as the body and mind Jesus was born with. Sin and sinful flesh nature are not one and the same thing.

Tom, this view of the relationship between sinning and the second death is, according to my understanding of it, incomplete. The fact sinners could live indefinitely (if they had regular access to the fruit of the tree of life) is evidence sin is not the agent that punishes or destroys sinners in the lake of fire. Even you believe it is the glory of God reacting with the sin in sinners that causes sinners to die in the lake of fire. Or, did I misunderstand your position?

I'm not really understanding your point, MM.

I'll try reiterating some of the points I made.

That sinners could continue to live is they had access to a plant with supernatural powers to heal would be evidence that sin is a principle incapable of sustaining life, which is what I said.

Basically I'm pointing out that once one sins, it is necessary for God to act in order to prevent the being who sinned from dying. When God ceases to act, the person dies. The reason for the death is due to sin.

It would be like a person got bit by a snake, and needs an antidote to keep from dying, except that the poison never dissipates, so the antidote must continually be applied. Once the antidote stops being applied, death results. What causes the death? The poison.

Similarly, sin causes death. God acts to prevent death from occurring. This is pointed out in the DA 764 quote:



Notice that God could have "left" them to reap the full result of their sin. Also notice that had God done so, they would have perished. Thus we see that God takes action (He does not "leave" those who have reject Him to suffer the result of their sin), in order to prevent them from perishing ("the inevitable result of sin").

Since the inevitable result of sin is death, if God wants death to cease, He must remove sin. Destroying the sinner wouldn't work (as EGW points out) as it would counteract the point God wanted to be seen, which is the death is "the inevitable result of sin" as opposed to "the inevitable result of an act of God."

Tom, the fruit of the tree of life was necessary to perpetuate life before man sinned. It will also be necessary to perpetuate life in heaven and the new earth. In other words, if people forgot or refused to eat it in heaven they would begin to die. Thus, the fact sinners would have lived forever if they had regular access to it doesn't mean they needed it to prevent sin from killing them.

Also, the following inspired insight makes it clear as to why God didn't immediately destroy Satan. This quote helps flesh out the one you posted.

The teaching of this parable is illustrated in God's own dealing with men and angels. Satan is a deceiver. When he sinned in heaven, even the loyal angels did not fully discern his character. This was why God did not at once destroy Satan. Had He done so, the holy angels would not have perceived the justice and love of God. A doubt of God's goodness would have been as evil seed that would yield the bitter fruit of sin and woe. Therefore the author of evil was spared, fully to develop his character. Through long ages God has borne the anguish of beholding the work of evil, He has given the infinite Gift of Calvary, rather than leave any to be deceived by the misrepresentations of the wicked one; for the tares could not be plucked up without danger of uprooting the precious grain. And shall we not be as forbearing toward our fellow men as the Lord of heaven and earth is toward Satan? {COL 72.2}

PS - Are you going to address the points in the post at the top of this page?

Quote:
I'm responding to your first post here, MM. The others I already responded to.

MM: 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?

Do you believe sin, as a concept, will cease to exist?

TE:As inspiration tells us, sin will cease to exist. Before sin existed it was possible to sin. The possibility of sin was never the issue; the existence of sin was and is. Whether it's about semantics is up to you decide, because you are the one arguing that sin does not cease to exist.

MM:The words sin, sins, sinned, sinning, and sinful have different meanings. "Sin is the transgression of the law." I believe this will be true throughout eternity. The scars of Jesus will forever remind us that sin is the transgression of the law. Sinning will cease, but the fact sin is the transgression of the law will never cease. Your answer makes it clear you believe this truth will cease to exist in heaven.

Ellen White wrote that "sin will be no more" which agrees with what I have been affirming, which is that sin will cease to exist. From this you somehow infer that I (and Ellen White, since she is affirming the same thing I am) believe that the principle that sin is the transgression of the law will no longer be the case.

Your inference is invalid. In addition, you present no logical basis for your inference, so I can't rebut your logic since you didn't use any. If you would point out how the fact that I affirm that sin will cease to exist implies that I believe that sin will no longer be transgression of the law, I could address that.

Quote:
MM: 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.

TE:Apparently, then, it's just a meaningless phrase, since it doesn't mean anything to you. You "believe" something that you have no idea what the meaning of is. Do you think this has any value? Is this something God finds valuable? (i.e., that we "believe" things of which we have no understanding.) To be clear, I'm not talking about the *how* here. There are things God does that are beyond any of us in terms of how He does them. I'm talking about the "what."

MM:"To be clear, I'm not talking about the *how* here." Tom, please note what I posted: "I cannot explain how Jesus became sin." That He became sin is clear. What that means is "beyond" our ability to explain.

When you wrote "I cannot explain how Jesus became sin" what you really meant is "What this means is 'beyond' my ability to explain" Correct? (You actually wrote "our," but I assume you meant "my," since your previous sentence, which is "I cannot explain how Jesus became sin" featured "I" as the pronoun, and not "We").

It's a bit confusing for you to write, "I cannot explain how Jesus became sin" and then write "I'm not talking about the "how" here. Apparently by "how" you meant something other than "how."

Be that as it may, my point remains the same. You are "believing" something that you say you have no understanding of. The questions I asked previously apply. Is there some virture in "believing" something that one has no understanding of?

Quote:
MM: Thus, while here, Jesus was unable to be in God’s unveiled presence. Sinful flesh cannot abide in the unveiled presence of God.

TE:Now you seem to be arguing a different point (unless you equate "sinful flesh" with "sin.") Now your argument appears to be that sinful flesh cannot be in God's unveiled presence, and Jesus became sinful flesh, so He could not have abided in God's unveiled presence. I'd be interested if you have anything to back this assertion (that sinful flesh cannot abide in God's presence). By "sinful flesh" do you have just the body in mind? Or does one's mind enter into the picture? E.g. could a sinless human being abide in God's presence (even though he or she had our flesh). That is, is not being able to abide in God's unveiled presence a problem of the flesh, or of the mind?

MM:Sinful flesh is where sin abides and resides.

This is not correct. Sin resides in the mind, not in the flesh. Christ came in sinful flesh, yet He was not sinful. If your assertion were true, that sin abides in the flesh, then sin would have abided in Christ, since Christ became flesh.

MM:Eliminate sinners and their sins cease to exist.

Their sins would, but sin would continue to exist, and that's the point. God was not trying to eliminate the sins of certain sinners, but to eliminate sin, which is an entirely different, and vastly more difficult, undertaking.

There has never been a being who inherited sinful flesh nature who was without sin.

There was Jesus. He inherited our sinful nature and was without sin.

Jesus became sin for us therefore He was not without sin.

This is not correct. I'll prove it to you from Scripture.

We are repeating an unfortunate common occurence. You make a claim which is false. I prove it's false, but you refuse to acknowledge your error.



True, He never committed a sin, but He became sin. Moses was unable to appear in God's unveiled presence. Why? Because it would have destroyed Him. The same is true is of Sister White. She was unable to see the form of the Father because it would have destroyed her.

Quote:
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.

TE:If Jesus became sin when He became human, when He assumed sinful flesh, then it would appear that to say Jesus "became sin" is exactly equivalent to saying that He "assumed sinful flesh." What difference could there be in these to things, if they happened at the same time, (i.e. when Jesus became a human being)?

MM:Yes, Jesus became sin when He became human, when He inherited sinful flesh nature. Sin is inherent in sinful flesh nature. Sinful flesh nature is not the same thing as the body and mind Jesus was born with. Sin and sinful flesh nature are not one and the same thing.

What's the difference in saying that "Jesus became sin" and "Jesus assumed our sinful nature"?

1. I believe "sin is the transgression of the law" will continue to be true throughout eternity. Do you?

2. I posted the following: "I cannot explain how Jesus became sin." In response to this you wrote the following: "I'm not talking about the *how* here."

3. My inability to explain how Jesus became sin, or how Jesus became human, in no way means my faith has no merit or virtue.

4. Sin abides in the flesh. "The sin that dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." See Romans 7:18-20. It also abides in our mind. We inherit the one and cultivate the other.

5. God cannot eliminate sin as a concept, as a truth. See number 1 above. But He will eliminate our sins in the lake of fire.

6. Yes, in spite of the fact He was tempted, Jesus never committed a sin. Please realize that I agree with you. That's exactly what your Scripture quote says. However, the Bible also says Jesus became sin.

7. Jesus did not "assume" our sinful fleshn nature. He inherited it in the same way we do. His sinful flesh nature warred against Him in the exact same way it wars against us. Jesus also became sin. We do not.

PS - Will you be able to address my last two posts?

1. I believe "sin is the transgression of the law" will continue to be true throughout eternity. Do you?

This is a silly question. Of course.

2. I posted the following: "I cannot explain how Jesus became sin." In response to this you wrote the following: "I'm not talking about the *how* here."

???

3. My inability to explain how Jesus became sin, or how Jesus became human, in no way means my faith has no merit or virtue.

This isn't responsive to my questions. You're kind of changing words in your responses from post to post. Maybe quoting things, and responding to the quotes might be good.

4. Sin abides in the flesh. "The sin that dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." See Romans 7:18-20. It also abides in our mind. We inherit the one and cultivate the other.

Clearly Jesus did not cultivate sin. Therefore sin did not reside in Jesus' mind. Christ assumed our nature, and in that we became sin, correct?

5. God cannot eliminate sin as a concept, as a truth. See number 1 above. But He will eliminate our sins in the lake of fire.

God cannot eliminate sin as a truth? Sin isn't a "truth." It's a lie. Sin *will* be eliminated, we it is written "sin will be no more." (not "sins" will be no more, nor "sinning" will be no more, but "sin" will be no more).

6. Yes, in spite of the fact He was tempted, Jesus never committed a sin. Please realize that I agree with you.

I didn't doubt you agreed with this.

That's exactly what your Scripture quote says.

Actually the Scripture quote says the exact opposite of what you said. You wrote, "Jesus became sin for us therefore He was not without sin." The Bible, on the other hand, says that Christ was "without sin."

You were wrong in saying that Jesus was not without sin (and seriously so at that. Try saying this in public, like at a sermon, and see what happens).

However, the Bible also says Jesus became sin.

Not exactly. You should really quote what Scripture says in its context, as that would help avoid the types of errors you are making. The Bible says, "He he knew no sin was made to be sin for us." Saying He "knew no sin" is the same as saying He was "without sin." You err in saying that Christ was not without sin, which contradicts what Paul said, which is that He *was* without sin.

7. Jesus did not "assume" our sinful flesh nature.

You're wrong on this too, in two ways. First of all, our "sinful flesh nature" is a term you have made up. It is neither in Scripture, nor in the Spirit of Prophecy. "Sinful nature" one can find, "sinful flesh" one can find, and "fallen nature" as well (as well as come other combinations) but one cannot find "sinful flesh nature." Secondly, that Christ assumed our nature is often stated by EGW (which, frankly, I'm a bit surprised you didn't know, since she did so often.)



He inherited it in the same way we do. His sinful flesh nature warred against Him in the exact same way it wars against us. Jesus also became sin.

How "also"? It appears that "Christ became sin" to you means that Christ became flesh. What does the "also" here mean?

We do not.

PS - Will you be able to address my last two posts?

One post just asks if I'd respond to another post, which I already told you I addressed. I'll address the other one.

1. It appears, then, that we both agree that the truth - "sin is the transgression of the law" - will continue to exist throughout eternity, that this truth will not be eliminated in the lake of fire.

2. What did you mean by - "I'm not talking about the *how* here."


3. I cannot explain "how" Jesus became sin, how He was made to be sin. Can you?

4. Good, we agree sin resides in the flesh. We become aware of it when an unholy thought or feeling enters our mind. Such thoughts and feelings do not constitute sin, they are, at least initially, temptations. The saem thing was true of Jesus.

5. It is true that sinning will not happen after God destroys sinners in the lake of fire. However, the truth that - "sin is the transgression of the law" - will continue to be true throughout eternity. It will not be eliminated.

6. Jesus was without sin in that He never committed a sin. However, He was not without sin in that He became sin, that He was made to be sin.

7. Yes, Jesus "assumed" fallen flesh in that He inherited the same nature we inherit. His flesh, where sin resides, warred against Him. The sin that resided in His flesh is our sins, not His. In addition to this insight is the fact Jesus was made to be sin. He became sin when He became human. Inheriting sinful flesh and becoming sin are two different truths.

8. It is sin or the glory of God that causes sinners to suffer and burn up in the lake of fire?

1. It appears, then, that we both agree that the truth - "sin is the transgression of the law" - will continue to exist throughout eternity, that this truth will not be eliminated in the lake of fire.

The lake of fire doesn't eliminate truth. 2 + 2 will still equal 4. It's very odd that you would think this is a point worth making.

2. What did you mean by - "I'm not talking about the *how* here."

Quote:
MM: 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.

TE:Apparently, then, it's just a meaningless phrase, since it doesn't mean anything to you. You "believe" something that you have no idea what the meaning of is. Do you think this has any value? Is this something God finds valuable? (i.e., that we "believe" things of which we have no understanding.) To be clear, I'm not talking about the *how* here. There are things God does that are beyond any of us in terms of how He does them. I'm talking about the "what."

MM:"To be clear, I'm not talking about the *how* here." Tom, please note what I posted: "I cannot explain how Jesus became sin." That He became sin is clear. What that means is "beyond" our ability to explain.

"The Bible says Jesus became sin. I believe it. I don't need to be able to explain it right now." This is what I referring to when I asked you the questions I did regarding the value of "believing" something we do not understand.

3. I cannot explain "how" Jesus became sin, how He was made to be sin. Can you?

I didn't make the statement, "The Bible says Jesus became sin. I believe it. I don't need to be able to explain it right now." I can't think of anything of which I would say, "The Bible says X. I believe it. I don't need to be able to explain it right now."

4. Good, we agree sin resides in the flesh.

Right, we agree sin resides in the mind.

We become aware of it when an unholy thought or feeling enters our mind. Such thoughts and feelings do not constitute sin, they are, at least initially, temptations. The saem thing was true of Jesus.

I can't think of any inspired statement that says that sin dwelt in Jesus' flesh. I agree that Jesus assumed our fallen nature. You are being very inaccurate in the way you are stating things, something of which EGW counsels us we should be very careful. You are asserting a number of things which are either not in the Scriptures, or contrary to them. (such as "sinful flesh nature" and Christ's not being without sin, respectively).

5. It is true that sinning will not happen after God destroys sinners in the lake of fire. However, the truth that - "sin is the transgression of the law" - will continue to be true throughout eternity. It will not be eliminated.

The truth that 2 + 2 = 4 will not be eliminated. I don't know why this is a point worth making. That sin will be no more is noteworthy, however. Our whole discussion on this point started when you denied this. Why not just admit that sin will be no more, and we can be done here?

6. Jesus was without sin in that He never committed a sin. However, He was not without sin in that He became sin, that He was made to be sin.

It is clear from Scripture that He was without sin. I'm not sure why you think it incumbent to improve upon the words of Scripture and Sister White. You disagree that Christ was without sin (as per Scripture) and that sin will be no more (as per Ellen White).

7. Yes, Jesus "assumed" fallen flesh in that He inherited the same nature we inherit.

Ok, so what you wrote before, "Jesus did not "assume" our sinful flesh nature." is wrong.

His flesh, where sin resides, warred against Him.

Sin resides in the mind. This should be really easy for you to understand, because I'm sure you're aware that the flesh, of itself, cannot act contrary to the will of God, right? Also, sin is the transgression of the law, which is not something the flesh can do, but the mind.

The flesh simply follows the dictate of the mind. If sin resided in the flesh, then Christ could not have been "without sin," as Scripture states. Also, if this were true, the Holy Flesh people would have been right in their teachings.

The sin that resided in His flesh is our sins, not His.

This makes no sense. How could ours sins reside in His flesh? This doesn't even mean anything.

Let's take a specific example. Let's say I tell a lie, a willful statement to deceive, like say I didn't do something I did. Ok, what does it mean to say that this misstatement resided in Christ's flesh? How can a lie reside in flesh? A lie is something committed by the mind, and of which the mind is aware.

In addition to this insight is the fact Jesus was made to be sin. He became sin when He became human. Inheriting sinful flesh and becoming sin are two different truths.

How so?

8. It is sin or the glory of God that cause sinners to suffer and burn up in the lake of fire?

This isn't an either or question. DA 764 explains it well.