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


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.

GC 674
The fire that consumes the wicked purifies the earth. Every trace of the curse is swept away. No eternally burning hell will keep before the ransomed the fearful consequences of sin. {GC 674.1}

EW 294, 295
But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. . . I then looked and saw the fire which had consumed the wicked, burning up the rubbish and purifying the earth. Again I looked and saw the earth purified. {EW 294, 295}

The same consuming fire that punishes the wicked according to their sinfulness also burns up the rubbish of the earth. It is this fire that the saints must flee from in the New Jerusalem in order to avoid being burned up with the wicked and the rubbish of earth.

The quotes I posted above regarding the consuming fire of God's glory make it clear it is the same fire that 1) punishes the wicked in duration and intensity according to their sinfulness, that 2) ultimately burns them up, and that 3) finally burns up the rubbish of the earth.

Do you agree?

If so, then what does it say about the glory of God being a consuming fire? Is it literal fire? Is it spiritual fire? Or, is it both?

Is it possible to discuss these off-topic items in another already existing thread, or in a new one?

Sure Daryl. Just say where. (or create one)

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

Quote:
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?

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.

Quote:
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.

How could Christ have a human mind without having a human body? The important point is that He had to have a human mind, as the battle over sin is a matter of the mind.

TE: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?

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.

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 valueable? (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."

Quote:
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.

TE: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.

MM:Why not? 1) Because sin cannot exist in the presence of God, and 2) Jesus became sin.

But you, according to your own admission, have no idea what "Jesus became sin" means. Is this something that happened at the cross? Or when Christ became a human being? If only at the cross, then Jesus could have appeared in the presence of God, since He wouldn't have "become sin" yet.

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

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?

TE: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)?

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

Your logic was unsound, which is why I gave this as example. Your argued that Jesus could not have appeared in God's presence because He never did. I pointed out that one could use the same argument to show that Jesus could not have appeared in Mars, which is to say, your argument is specious. You really don't understand this? (your response here indicates a lack of understanding).


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.

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)?

As you can see, I have merged these posts into a new topic.

Ok, thanks.

I think this is a great name for a topic. I'd like to make a few comments on the topic, as Daryl has named it, in relation to some thoughts this topic brings to mind.

A big question for us to consider is if sin is something which brings its own punishment, or if it is necessary to add some additional punishment to sin. I believe the former is the case.

The punishment for sin is death, which is the natural consequence of sin. Sin is based upon a principle which is not possible of sustaining life. It is based on selfishness, which separates from God and others.

The life-sustaining principle of God's government is love. Love lives by giving. This principle is touched upon in the first chapter of "The Desire of Ages"



When we understand the principle of life and death, we can perceive that God is working to save us from sin itself, not from He will do to us if we don't do what we says. How we view this has implications upon how we view His character, which in turn impacts our experience with Him (and others).