Great questions by MountainMan
Posted By: Tom
Great questions by MountainMan - 06/21/05 02:11 AM
quote:
If the glory of God accounts for the fire that destroys the wicked in the lake of fire - then what accounts for the death of Jesus on the cross? And, in what way is God innocent of the death of the wicked since it is His glory that kills them?
I thought these were excellent questions which deserved more consideration than a quick response. So I'm opening a topic, hoping for some insights.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 06/21/05 05:43 PM
Actually, Tom, I have learned alot about sin and death and salvation by studying with you, and the others, this topic. Though I must also admit it is not the most pleasing topic to study. The idea of God killing people and angels isn't exactly my favorite subject to study.
So, if the glory of God is a consuming fire, in the symbolic sense, rather than in a literal sense, how is it that the unsaved can stand in the presence of God, at the Great White throne, long enough to be judged and sentenced without instantly imploding on the spot? Does God have some kind of on/off switch to control His glory and fire?
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 06/21/05 07:03 PM
Where did you get the idea that God's glory was symbolic, MM???
A sword coming out of Christ mouth and His riding a horse, now THAT is symbolic. Pregnant with meaning, but surely not literal.
I see two questions here, but the need to discuss basic elements of one factor before we start.
First, and again, MM we need to agree, if all are willing, what the definition of glory is. Is it a mindless power? Or only shininess, like in paintings of halos and light beams? Is it good or neutral? Is it God's Personhood as well as His appearance?
Then we need to see that every notch in the history of sin on this quarentined world must be met by God with the best solution for THAT problem or event. The Cross is not the burning bush or the Flood or the lake of Fire. Each problem has it's own solution, even though sin is the "black underlining" of all our history.
One is foolhardy to consider that God has no control of His own powers,or glory. He can exercise them and stop exercising them, according to His Wisdom. He is not controlled by His attributes of creative energy, but modifies them according to His wisdom and the needs of the hour. Not all "displays" of His glory, the mind-boggling vitality that maintains the orbits of billions of planets, are the same.
But power with God is goodness,personified, not unbridled kinetic energy. This may be a new idea to some.
Here is a significant example of what could be termed "reflective glory". Moses in essence was literally aglow with His goodness. Think of the brightness of the angels they never rebelled. This is also refective, as no glory is original save His.
Note the pain and fear even this borrowed type of glory caused those immersed in sin:
"The people perceive that it is the voice of Moses; that,although he is transformed and glorified, he is Moses yet. They tell him that they cannot look into his face, for the radiant light in his countenance is exceedingly painful to them. His face is like the sun; they cannot look upon it. When Moses finds out the difficulty, he covers his face with a veil. He does not plead that the light and glory upon his face is the reflection of God's glory that He placed upon him, and that the people must bear it; but he covers his glory. The sinfulness of the people make it painful to behold his glorified face. So will it be when the saints of God are glorified just previous to the second appearing of our Lord. The wicked will retire and shrink away from the sight, for the glory in the countenances of the saints will pain them. " {3T 354.3}
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 06/21/05 10:05 PM
I think Phil's quote brings out the principle well.
The way I conceive of things, the judgment itself is God's revealing His glory. That is, they are not two separate events. God will patiently and lovingly explain to the wicked the answers to their questions, and show where during their lives He spoke to them, making appeals, acting in their lives to try to save them, protecting them from danger, and so on. This process is painful for the wicked, who I believe will misunderstand what's happening, although it will be clear to onlookers.
The best anaology I know of this is one by C. S. Lewis who in a children's tale had a lion named Aslan who represented Christ. Some children asked Aslan why he didn't comfort a bitter old man who was living by himself in a cabin. He responded that he couldn't because no matter what he did, all the old man heard was a lion roaring.
As the Spirit of Prophesy puts it, by a lifetime of rebellion the wicked for characters so out of harmony with God's character that His presence becomes to them a consuming fire. Again the quote of Phil explains it well. It's like opening the door on a bright winter day with the sun reflecting off the snow -- the light's just too bright, it's painful to look at.
The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked.
It's important to note that it is the same thing which gives life to the righteous which slays the wicked. The same thing, which has two different responses.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 06/22/05 01:03 AM
Yes, of course, God manifests His glory in many and various ways. However, this insight begs the question - How is God innocent of killing unsaved sinners if He possesses the ability to regulate the effects of His glory? If they die because He chooses not to shield them from the deadly effects of His glory doesn't that make Him directly responsible for their death? I mean, apparently their sinfulness isn't enough to cause them to burst into flames, because otherwise why does God have to consume them with His unveiled glory? In other words, why don't they just die from spontaneous combustion?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 06/23/05 02:54 AM
I'm not understanding your questions, MM. I explained things as I understand them as best I could above. God gives the wicked up to their choice, which is death.
quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. (DA 764)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/03/05 07:01 AM
If our sins cut us off from the source of life - why don't we die right now? What does the glory of God have to do with the death of the unsaved in the lake of fire?
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/04/05 11:47 AM
“Man had sinned, and it was necessary that he learn what the wages of sin are, and that God does not arbitrarily decree death because of transgression, but that death is wrapped up with sin itself…Probation is therefore God’s solution to the problem of giving men continued existence though they had violated the law of life. It is a day of grace granted all, during which time God does not impute to him their sins but does all that love can contrive to win them back to obedience. ” M.L. Andreasen, “The Book of Hebrews”, page 285,296
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/04/05 08:18 PM
If the second death is the natural consequences of sinning, then why does God have to regulate His glory in order not to kill them? Also, why did God have to prevent them from eating from the tree of life? How could a sinner regularly eat the fruit from the tree of life and "live forever" if the wages of sin is death? And, why does God have to resurrect the unsaved? Is it required that they die by being exposed to God's unshielded glory?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/05/05 08:05 AM
MM:If the second death is the natural consequences of sinning, then why does God have to regulate His glory in order not to kill them?
Tom: The very reason that sin inevitably results in death is because those who have resisted God's Spirit have formed characters so out of harmony with God's character that His very presence becomes to them a consuming fire. This is spelled out very clearly in DA 764.
MM; Also, why did God have to prevent them from eating from the tree of life?
Tom: For the same reason He allowed them to eat meat after the flood. In mercy, He did not want man's life to be perpetuated too long.
MM: How could a sinner regularly eat the fruit from the tree of life and "live forever" if the wages of sin is death?
Tom: Sin results in death when God reveals His glory to men. Even to Moses, who was as close to God as anyone, God could not reveal His glory directly, because it would have killed Moses. This was explained to Moses in Ex. 33. So the conclusion is the only reason man is not destroyed immediately is that God does not reveal His glory to him. This really has nothing whatsoever to do with the tree of life, which has special healing powers.
MM; And, why does God have to resurrect the unsaved?
Tom: This is an excellent question which I have asked myself. I can't remember if it's been asked on this forum. You could post it as a topic, as it's worth discussion.
MM; Is it required that they die by being exposed to God's unshielded glory?
Tom: Same comment. Good question, which deserves its own topic, IMO.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/06/05 02:21 AM
But what about the scripture that says God placed an angel to prevent people from accessing the tree of life because otherwise sinners would be able to “eat, and live forever”? To me, that sounds like the first death is the result of not being able to eat from the tree of life. In other words, sin has nothing to do with what causes the first death. The reason why we die the first death is due to the fact God will not let us eat the fruit of life.
Therefore, we die on account of something God is doing, which is a basic point you seem to be overlooking. I understand why God will not let us eat the fruit of life and, of course, I agree with it, but it doesn’t change the fact we die because of something God is doing, namely, forbidding access to something that would prevent death. As such, death is not the direct result of sinning, which is based on the fact that sinners would live forever if they had regular access to the tree of life. It is not sin that kills them, but rather they die because God will not let them eat the fruit in their sinful state.
The same thing can be said of the glory of God. As you say, unsaved sinners will die the second death the moment they are exposed to the unshielded glory of God. However, according to your view, God can regulate His glory in such a way that sinners are not immediately destroyed in His presence. Given the fact it is possible for sinners to stand in the presence of God’s glory, without being instantly consumed, it is clear to me, then, that people will die the second death because of something God does. As such, death is not result of sin. Yes, the reason why God allows His glory to kill sinners is due to their sinfulness, but it isn't their sins that kill them.
Thus, whether we are talking about the first or second death - people die because of something God chooses to do. Death is the direct result of a choice God makes and, of course, the reason why God chooses to behave in such a way that people die is because of their sinfulness, because they rejected the salvation provided through the shed blood of Jesus, because heaven would be to them a place of torture.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/06/05 07:21 AM
MM: But what about the scripture that says God placed an angel to prevent people from accessing the tree of life because otherwise sinners would be able to “eat, and live forever”? To me, that sounds like the first death is the result of not being able to eat from the tree of life.
Tom: Had man never sinned, he would never had died. There's hardly a teaching in Scripture that is more clear than that death is the result of sin. The fact that God did not wish for man to receive the special healing which the tree of life would have given has no bearing on this question.
Because of sin, man's vital force began to be depleted. Eating from the tree of life would have prompted the vital force to be revitalized. In mercy, God did not wish for that to happen, as man's miserable existence in this sin-cursed earth would have been prolonged.
MM: In other words, sin has nothing to do with what causes the first death. The reason why we die the first death is due to the fact God will not let us eat the fruit of life.
Tom: "As in Adam all die, in Christ shall all be made alive." "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
These Scriptures are dealing with the first death. Sin causes death.
MM: Therefore, we die on account of something God is doing, which is a basic point you seem to be overlooking.
Tom: Men die because of sin. That's not something God did.
MM: I understand why God will not let us eat the fruit of life and, of course, I agree with it, but it doesn’t change the fact we die because of something God is doing, namely, forbidding access to something that would prevent death.
Tom: How can you blame our death on God? God is innocent. Satan is the author of sin and death.
MM: As such, death is not the direct result of sinning, which is based on the fact that sinners would live forever if they had regular access to the tree of life. It is not sin that kills them, but rather they die because God will not let them eat the fruit in their sinful state.
Tom: This is not correct. Sin changed man in all sorts of ways, including making him subject to death. Because of sin, man ages, becomes sick, and dies. The tree of life would have helped heal man's loss of vital force and his diseases, but it's reading way too much into things to think that man would never have died had he not been deprived of eating from the tree of life. It still would have been true that this corruptible could not have put on incorruptible.
You seem to be latching on the same arguments that many non-Adventists use regarding hell being eternal. "Forever" in Scripture means for as long as the thing in question takes place. The point isn't that man would have lived forever had he eaten of the tree of life as we commonly understand the term, as meaning as long as God shall live, but that his existence would have been prolonged. It's obvious that sin causes disease and death. Do you think if man had not sinned, and God prevented him from eating of the tree of life that he would have become diseased?
MM; The same thing can be said of the glory of God. As you say, unsaved sinners will die the second death the moment they are exposed to the unshielded glory of God. However, according to your view, God can regulate His glory in such a way that sinners are not immediately destroyed in His presence.
Tom: This is clear. God is present everywhere, yet men live. So God is evidently able to do this.
MM: Given the fact it is possible for sinners to stand in the presence of God’s glory, without being instantly consumed, it is clear to me, then, that people will die the second death because of something God does. As such, death is not result of sin.
Tom: Death is the inevitable result of sin:
quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. {DA 764.1}
At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}
One of the reasons God gave His Son to die was to show that it was *not* He, but sin, which causes death.
quote:
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:13-15)
It is sin, not God, which causes death. The death of Christ on the cross proves this.
MM: Yes, the reason why God allows His glory to kill sinners is due to their sinfulness, but it isn't their sins that kill them.
Tom: Sure it is, because the same thing which God does to the righteous kills the wicked. Look:
quote:
The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4}
See? The glory of God imparts life to the righteous. God is doing the same thing (revealing His goodness, His character) to both. To the righteous this imparts life, but to the wicked it causes death.
What's the difference? Is it God? No. It's with the wicked, who because of sin have formed characters which cannot abide in God's presence. God doesn't change His presence. He's just Himself, the same kind, gracious, good, wonderful God He revealed Himself to be while living among us here on earth.
MM: Thus, whether we are talking about the first or second death - people die because of something God chooses to do. Death is the direct result of a choice God makes and, of course, the reason why God chooses to behave in such a way that people die is because of their sinfulness, because they rejected the salvation provided through the shed blood of Jesus, because heaven would be to them a place of torture.
Tom: God chooses to act good, because that's His nature. His goodness imparts life to the righteous but results in the death of the wicked.
quote:
To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. 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)
The glory of God destroys sin. It's hardly God's doing that men cling to sin. He has done everything possible to persuade man to give it up.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/06/05 10:28 AM
Sorry,
MM but your "Tree of Life Theory" makes our Life-giver and Saviour a tree.
Hey! A new offshoot! Tree Adventists!
I wooden like to be one
![[Animated Laughter]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/07/05 06:12 AM
Tom, death is the indirect result of sin. The direct cause is not being able to eat the fruit of life. Even in the New Earth, if we do not regularly eat the fruit of life, we would gradually die in the same way Adam did. Sin has nothing to do with why we die. We die because God will not let us eat of the tree of life. You can reword Genesis 3:22-24 if you want to, but it says what it says. true, people probably would have killed each other off, but that would have been an indirect cause of sin.
Yes, it is because we are sinful that God will not let us eat the fruit of life, which is why we die the first death. In fact, even people like Peter, Paul, and John, who had ceased sinning, eventually died. Why? Because they were unable to eat from the tree of life. No, the tree of life isn’t our Saviour, not any more than it was for Adam before he sinned. Sorry, Phil, no new cult to join. Ha! All the dreadful diseases that kill people are the result of Satan tampering with the forces of nature - not the direct result of sin. Sin isn't some kind of agent or substance that causes virus and plague.
Genesis
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
3SM 391
Already sprinklings from the vials of God's wrath have been let fall upon land and sea, affecting the elements of the air. The causes of these unusual conditions are being searched for, but in vain. {3SM 391.2}
God has not restrained the powers of darkness from carrying forward their deadly work of vitiating the air, one of the sources of life and nutrition, with a deadly miasma. Not only is vegetable life affected, but man suffers from pestilence. . . . {3SM 391.3}
Physical and Religious World to Be Shaken.-- These things are the result of drops from the vials of God's wrath being sprinkled on the earth, and are but faint representations of what will be in the near future. {3SM 391.4}
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/06/05 09:05 PM
We don't die because we don't eat of a tree. We die because of sin. Even if the tree didn't exist, we would still die. Our death is not dependent on the tree.
Here's an analogy. Let's say you get bit by a venemous snake. An antidote exists, but you don't have access to it, so you die. Why did you die? Because you didn't have access to the antidote, or because you got bit? Even if the antidote did not exist, you would still die, and the cause of your death in any case would have been the same.
Similarly the existence or non-existence of the tree of life does not impact the cause of our death.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/06/05 10:58 PM
Your analogy assumes sin is a poisonous substance. But it isn't. Sin is the transgression of God's law - not a person, place, or thing. If death is the result of sin why, then, did God place an angel to prevent sinners from accessing the tree? Why was He concerned that sinners would live forever if they had regular access to the tree?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/07/05 01:10 AM
Because God didn't wish to prolong their existence, similarly to how He allowed men to eat of meat after the fall to cut man's lifespan. But this has nothing to do with the fact that sin causes death.
The point of the analogy is that man dies because of sin, not because of not eating of the tree of life. Even if there was no tree, man would still die. The tree does not cause man's death, sin does.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/07/05 02:00 AM
Tom, you seem convinced that eating the fruit of life has nothing do with living forever. Do you also believe that in the New Earth it will not be necessary to eat the fruit of life in order to avoid dying gradually?
Also, would you please comment on the following observation:
quote:
All the dreadful diseases that kill people are the result of Satan tampering with the forces of nature - not the direct result of sin. Sin isn't some kind of agent or substance that causes virus and plague.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/07/05 02:15 AM
MM: Tom, you seem convinced that eating the fruit of life has nothing do with living forever. Do you also believe that in the New Earth it will not be necessary to eat the fruit of life in order to avoid dying gradually?
Tom: Living forever has to do with knowing God, because knowing God is eternal life, as Jesus states in John 17:3. God uses the tree of life as a means to an end, but it is God who gives us life, not a tree.
How could one die without sin? We know that sin causes death, and there will be no sin in the hereafter, hence no death. Now sin is in its essence disobedience to God, so if it is God's will that we eat of the tree of life, then we will do so happily.
MM: Also, would you please comment on the following observation:
"All the dreadful diseases that kill people are the result of Satan tampering with the forces of nature - not the direct result of sin. Sin isn't some kind of agent or substance that causes virus and plague."
I agree with this to a large extent. I think it's a good observation. However, I would add that sin involves styfling ones convictions, acting against one's conscience, and rebelling against the goodness of God which leads to repentance. I think these actions also contribute to disease.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/07/05 02:52 AM
So then, do you believe eating the fruit of life in the New Earth is optional? that it isn't necessary in order to maintain the life God gives us? that it doesn't contain elements we need regularly to live eternally?
Yes, sin is anything we think, say, or do that violates the law of God, the word of God, or the example of the Son of God. It is not one of the elements on the Periodic Table.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/07/05 03:10 AM
Hey, this is like dual ping-pong! You're it on the other table!
MM: So then, do you believe eating the fruit of life in the New Earth is optional? that it isn't necessary in order to maintain the life God gives us? that it doesn't contain elements we need regularly to live eternally?
Tom: I think life comes from God, and how God chooses to give it to us is not really important. We will do whatever God wishes, because our heart's desire will be to do His will. Man does not live by bread alone (or fruit), but by every word which comes from the mouth of God.
MM: Yes, sin is anything we think, say, or do that violates the law of God, the word of God, or the example of the Son of God. It is not one of the elements on the Periodic Table.
Tom: Right. And acting contrary to God's law, which is His character, is death. "All they that hate me love death."
It's death not for some arbitrary reason, like God will kill you if you don't obey Him, but because God alone is the source of life and to cut oneself from Him (which is what acting contrary to His character does) is death.
There is a great danger in acting from a motivation of fear. The following quote brings this out:
quote:
A sullen submission to the will of the Father will develop the character of a rebel. By such a one service is looked upon as drudgery. It is not rendered cheerfully, and in the love of God. It is a mere mechanical performance. If he dared, such a one would disobey. His rebellion is smothered, ready to break out at any time in bitter murmurings and complaints. Such service brings no peace or quietude to the soul. {ST, July 22, 1897 par. 11}
It is vital that we have a proper conception of God's character. The Jews who rejected Christ thought they were right in every way in regards to following God's will, but they didn't know Him, and when He came in the flesh they hated Him and killed Him.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 06:21 AM
One difference is that I believe, without a doubt, that regularly eating the fruit of life is necessary to continue living forever, and that this applies to sinners and saints alike.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 06:48 AM
quote:
One difference is that I believe, without a doubt, that regularly eating the fruit of life is necessary to continue living forever, and that this applies to sinners and saints alike.
This is a trivial matter. All life comes from God. The tree is just a means of communicating that fact.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 06:51 AM
Perhaps, but since we view Genesis 3:22-24 differently it may be more than trivial in this study.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/07/05 09:06 PM
I'm not sure that we view it differently, other than the relative importance we place on it. You seem to be using it as the center-piece to your theology. You start with that one verse, and build your understanding of sin and death upon that. That seems to me to be a very odd hermaneutic to use.
The Bible has very little to say regarding the Tree of Life, but a great deal to say about sin and death. The normal procedure in Bible Study is to start with the well-defined and allow the more obscure things be clarified by the well-defined, rather than the other way around.
Posted By: Davros
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/07/05 10:31 PM
Although I wonder, where does the power of the tree of life come from?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/07/05 11:43 PM
It's just that a simple reading of Genesis 3:22-24, taking it at face value, it is clear that if sinners were allowed regular access to the fruit of the tree of life they would live indefinitely.
PP 47
In the midst of the garden stood the tree of life, surpassing in glory all other trees. Its fruit appeared like apples of gold and silver, and had the power to perpetuate life. {PP 46.4}
7BC 988
The tree of life possessed the power to perpetuate life, and as long as they ate of it, they could not die. The lives of the antediluvians were protracted because of the life-giving power of this tree, which was transmitted to them from Adam and Eve (RH Jan. 26, 1897). {7BC 988.9}
The fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden possessed supernatural virtue. To eat of it was to live forever. Its fruit was the antidote of death. Its leaves were for the sustaining of life and immortality. {7BC 988.10}
GC 533, 534
Had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized. But cherubim and a flaming sword kept "the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24), and not one of the family of Adam has been permitted to pass that barrier and partake of the life-giving fruit. Therefore there is not an immortal sinner. {GC 533.3}
[ July 07, 2005, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
Posted By: Davros
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/07/05 11:49 PM
And where does the tree gain it's power? I would not think that the power belonged to the tree.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 12:18 AM
quote:
It's just that simple a reading of Genesis 3:22-24, taking it at face value, it is clear that if sinners were allowed regular access to the fruit of the tree of life they would live indefinitely.
A simple reading of Rev. 14:11, taking it at face value, it is clear that those who receive the mark of the beast will be tormented for all eternity:
"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 12:23 AM
The breath of life comes from God, but it would appear that the tree of life contains certain properties necessary to perpetuate life. "Had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized." It would also appear that other foods and water are required, too.
Posted By: Davros
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 12:30 AM
But the tree was created by God, and I would think that it's power came from God.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 01:16 AM
Right! So, is it true that God blocked access to the tree because He didn't want sinners to "eat, and to live forever"? Or, as Tom affirms, would they have died gradually anyhow?
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 01:39 AM
"Tree Adventists" are a very small clique, acoording to my research, who have a tendency to praise the twiglet and focus on the tiny, slighting the trunk and the Tree-Planter Himself.
We are warned not to look for molehills:
"Satan will be sure to come to that mind with the temptation to misconstrue and to make a mountain out of a molehill. A mind that easily stumbles over hurt feelings will conjure up mistaken ideas of all kinds." {TDG 19.3}
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 02:21 AM
Phil, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Ha! So, what do you make of the quotes posted above (the ones concerning the tree of life)? BTW, "plowing"? Isn't that what people do to ready the ground for trees and plants?
Posted By: Davros
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 02:50 AM
Well, the significance of the matter escapes me, but then it is that way with a lot of things. Does it bring us any closer to God to know how we will have eternal life, or is it that we just have eternal life important?
Posted By: John Boskovic
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 02:56 AM
I can just imagine the 'tree of life' standing today somewhere in the treacherous middle east.
I can imagine who would have possession of it and allowing access to it; and how we small fry, would ever get any of it.
My guess is that if the tree had been left to this world; Armageddon, and then some, would have happened 5000+ years ago.
I doubt there would be anyone alive to eat of it.
I have an idea that sin can kill in spite (or because) of it.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 03:30 AM
Ask Adam and Eve how important the tree of life is. Without it we die. "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev 22:14. Restoration to the tree of life is a major theme in the Bible and the SOP.
Revelation
2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
MAR 354
The Garden of Eden remained upon the earth long after man had become an outcast from its pleasant paths. The fallen race were long permitted to gaze upon the home of innocence, their entrance barred only by the watching angels. At the cherubim-guarded gate of Paradise the divine glory was revealed. Hither came Adam and his sons to worship God. Here they renewed their vows of obedience to that law the transgression of which had banished them from Eden. When the tide of iniquity overspread the world, and the wickedness of men determined their destruction by a flood of waters, the hand that had planted Eden withdrew it from the earth. But in the final restitution, when there shall be "a new heaven and a new earth" (Revelation 21:1), it is to be restored more gloriously adorned than at the beginning. {Mar 354.1}
EW 149
He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself, that through Him man might find pardon; that through the merits of His blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. {EW 149.2}
EW 289
I then saw Jesus leading His people to the tree of life, and again we heard His lovely voice, richer than any music that ever fell on mortal ear, saying, "The leaves of this tree are for the healing of the nations. Eat ye all of it." Upon the tree of life was most beautiful fruit, of which the saints could partake freely. In the city was a most glorious throne, from which proceeded a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal. On each side of this river was the tree of life, and on the banks of the river were other beautiful trees bearing fruit which was good for food. {EW 289.1}
MAR 325
The fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden possessed supernatural virtue. To eat of it was to live forever. Its fruit was the antidote of death. . . . {Mar 325.1}
After the entrance of sin the heavenly Husbandman transplanted the tree of life to the Paradise above. {Mar 325.2}
The redeemed saints, who have loved God and kept His commandments here, will enter in through the gates of the city, and have right to the tree of life. They will eat freely of it as our first parents did before their fall. The leaves of that immortal widespread tree will be for the healing of the nations. All their woes will then be gone. Sickness, sorrow, and death they will never again feel, for the leaves of the tree of life have healed them. Jesus will then see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied, when the redeemed, who have been subject to sorrow, toil, and afflictions, who have groaned beneath the curse, are gathered up around that tree of life to eat of its immortal fruit, that our first parents forfeited all right to, by breaking God's commands. There will be no danger of their ever losing right to the tree of life again, for he that tempted our first parents to sin will be destroyed by the second death. {Mar 325.3}
Obedience to all the commandments of God was the condition of eating of the tree of life. Adam fell by disobedience. . . . {Mar 325.4}
Obedience through Jesus Christ gives to man perfection of character and a right to that tree of life. The conditions of again partaking of the fruit of the tree are plainly stated in the testimony of Jesus Christ to John: "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." {Mar 325.5}
Restored to the tree of life in the long-lost Eden, the redeemed will "grow up" to the full stature of the race in its primeval glory. The last lingering traces of the curse of sin will be removed, and Christ's faithful ones will appear in "the beauty of the Lord our God," in mind and soul and body reflecting the perfect image of their Lord. Oh, wonderful redemption! long talked of, long hoped for, contemplated with eager anticipation, but never fully understood. {Mar 325.6}
CET 98
[Speaking of other worlds] Then I saw two trees. One looked much like the tree of life in the city. The fruit of both looked beautiful, but of one they could not eat. They had power to eat of both, but were forbidden to eat of one. Then my attending angel said to me, "None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree; but if they should eat, they would fall." {CET 98.1}
Posted By: John Boskovic
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 04:15 AM
The tree of life would not have helped Abel, whom his brother slew. So it would have become a source of contention and murder. You can imagine what a sinful heart would decide to take possession of it and to kill anyone else that would attempt to eat of it.
That in itself is proof that God never meant "his warning" to be a threat; because the tree of life does not stop anyone from killing.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 05:04 AM
According to DA 108, the glory of God imparts life to the righteous.
Surely it must be obvious that life comes from God, not from a tree. Sin leads to death because of what it is in its nature:
quote:
God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. (DA 764)
This is clear, isn't it?
Posted By: Davros
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 05:33 AM
I'm pretty sure that Adam and Eve were more greeved over the loss of living with God than the tree.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 06:24 AM
quote:
I'm pretty sure that Adam and Eve were more grieved over the loss of living with God than the tree.
I don't know; how sad was the tree? ![[Razz]](images/icons/tongue.gif)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 06:56 AM
Yes, of course, John. However, according to this observation death is the result of sinners killing each other - and not because sin is inherently toxic. It isn't sin that kills them, but rather sinners killing each other.
Posted By: Davros
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 08:06 PM
But isn't it a sin to kill each other? Therefore, isn't it a sin that kills?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 08:28 PM
Nope. Sin isn't a person. Sin is what we think, say or do. The reason why we sin is because we have a sinful nature. Unless we are born again all we can do is sin. Sin isn't what kills us. If we don't kill each other first, then we die because we do not have access to the tree of life. It's as simple as that.
Posted By: Davros
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 08:30 PM
Ah yes, but if we did not have sin, we would not kill.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 09:13 PM
quote:
The reason why we sin is because we have a sinful nature.
This certainly isn't true, if by "the reason" you mean "the only reason" or even "the principal reason." It's a contributing factor, of course, but Christ took the very same nature we have, yet never sinned.
Posted By: John Boskovic
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/08/05 11:08 PM
He that kills others is only a step away from killing himself. Remember Saul?
Greed brings fear; fear brings death.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 03:26 AM
Again we have come full circle: Sin is only what you do, not what you are, according to. MM With this theory, the leper is blamed for his scabs, his wounds dressed, but no real attempt is made to face the disease and shed the virus that causes the suffering.
Sin may not be a chemical element, or sensible object, but neither is love or honesty or faith. Yet all are powers that are beyond human calculation and are quite real.
Anyone truly interested in this issue can research the EGW CD on these matters. Here are some quotes of God's Messenger:
"Sin is a disorganizer."
"Sin is a hateful thing."
"...sin is a tremendous evil."
"Sin is a mysterious, unexplainable thing."
"Sin is a heinous and offensive thing."
"Sin is a disgrace."
"Sin is the greatest of all evils."
" 'Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.' They were in the worst kind of bondage,--ruled by the spirit of evil."
Now if one waters down the statements above, and panders that sin is only the bad things we do, we might as well become Behaviouralists. It would save a whole lot of responsibilty and guilt.
Posted By: John Boskovic
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 05:23 AM
You are right Phil.
But MM's point was that eternal life came from the "tree of life"; rather than that it came from every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
So I just thought he might see that the tree cannot assure eternal life to anyone, And that God did not create death by withdrawing the tree, but only made evident the need for the spirit (word of life) in order that life be lived eternally.
Mat 4:4 ...It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
So is the difference of trying to live by the "tree of life", rather than the "word of life".
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 06:25 AM
The age old argument - Sin is a state of doing; no, sin is a state of being! And then there are those who say - It's both.
Yes, we have a sinful nature and it generates and communicates all manner of unholy thoughts and feelings. Initially, though, they are nothing more than temptations. It's not until we desire or do them that we become guilty of them.
Sin is not who and what we are. No way. Sin is the transgression of God's law in thought, word or deed. To say otherwise implies we are guilty of sinning because we have a sinful nature, which would also imply Jesus was guilty of sinning. We are sinners because we sin, not because we have a sinful nature.
AH 127, 128
The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. The words "flesh" or "fleshly" or "carnal lusts" embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts. How shall we do it? Shall we inflict pain on the body? No; but put to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ. All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul. The love of God must reign supreme; Christ must occupy an undivided throne. Our bodies are to be regarded as His purchased possession. The members of the body are to become the instruments of righteousness. {AH 127.2}
Posted By: Davros
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 06:33 AM
It's odd how topics merge sometimes. It all comes down to the same unimportant questions and theories. What is most important? That we are sinners (young or old), and we need a savior. That Jesus came and died for us so we can be with him. That we keep all that the Lord has commanded us to. Understanding faults does not bring us any closer to God.
In the words of Paul,
quote:
Timothy, guard what God has trusted to you. Stay away from foolish, useless talk and from the arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge.
1 Timothy 6:20 NCV
quote:
Stay away from foolish, useless talk, because that will lead people further away from God.
2 Timothy 2:16 NCV
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 06:54 AM
Dave, it's a free country. You are not required to post on this thread.
Posted By: Davros
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 06:57 AM
And you are not requierd to read! However, as it is a free country, I think I should have the right to point out when scripture says a particular action that is taking place leads people away from God.
Wouldn't you agree "Double M?"
Posted By: Davros
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 07:00 AM
So, with all rudness aside, what was being discssed? A tree or sinful natures or something?
Posted By: John Boskovic
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 03:14 PM
MM's point was that eternal life came from the "tree of life"; rather than that it came from every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
So I just thought he might see that the tree cannot assure eternal life to anyone, And that God did not create death by withdrawing the tree, but only made evident the need for the spirit (word of life) in order that life be lived eternally.
Mat 4:4 ...It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
So is the difference of trying to live by the "tree of life", rather than the "word of life".
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 07:38 PM
John, please, even a casual reading of this thread will reveal that God is the source of life. It is He who gave the breath of life. And, it is He who set things up in such a way that we are required to eat regularly of the tree of life to live forever. Eating the fruit isn't symbolic, rather, it is necessary to continue living forever, and to avoid dying slowly. The tree and the fruit contain supernatural nutrients needful to live eternally.
Posted By: John Boskovic
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 08:28 PM
quote:
The age old argument - Sin is a state of doing; no, sin is a state of being! And then there are those who say - It's both.
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Posted By: John Boskovic
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 08:34 PM
quote:
John, please, even a casual reading of this thread will reveal that God is the source of life. It is He who gave the breath of life. And, it is He who set things up in such a way that we are required to eat regularly of the tree of life to live forever.
And when he removed the tree, it is because he wanted us to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God in order to live forever.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 09:10 PM
Actually, God didn't remove the tree until the time of the Flood. It remained on earth for approximately 1400 years. The reason He denied sinners access to the tree is because He didn't want them to "eat, and live forever." Simple as that! Yes, of course, God wants us to live by every word He has spoken. If we refuse to live by His word then He will refuse to grant us access to the tree of life.
Revelation
22:14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/09/05 09:15 PM
Since only a good tree can bring forth good fruit it is necessary, therefore, for us to be born again, and to partake of the divine nature, so that we can resist the unholy clamorings of our fallen flesh and imitate the example of Jesus. We do not become a good tree, rather Jesus makes it possible for us to partake of the Good Tree (i.e., the divine nature), and thereby produce good fruit, the fruits of the Spirit.
Posted By: John Boskovic
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/10/05 01:22 AM
quote:
The reason He denied sinners access to the tree is because He didn't want them to "eat, and live forever." Simple as that!
The reason He denied sinners access to the tree is because He wanted them to live forever and not die. This is only possible in living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Simple as that!
Posted By: John Boskovic
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/10/05 01:30 AM
quote:
Since only a good tree can bring forth good fruit, it is necessary therefore, for us to be born again, and to partake of the divine nature,
Agreed
quote:
so that we can resist the unholy clamoring of our fallen flesh and imitate the example of Jesus. We do not become a good tree, rather Jesus makes it possible for us to partake of the Good Tree (i.e., the divine nature), and thereby produce good fruit, the fruits of the Spirit.
I have a problem with you idea of “imitate”. Do we also imitate being born again? Of what are we born again?
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Luk 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
Luk 5:38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/10/05 01:47 AM
I agree with John B.: there is no "imitation" to it, and no "mystical aspect" to becoming a different tree altogether upon rebirth (with a promise of physical change later). Perhaps that is where the rub is for you MM. The churlish replies to those who do not agree with your convey a contridiction in profession..at least they certainly come across as peckish, to put it politely.
Whether you wish to make the "tree of life" a rallying cry for yourself is up to you; but it is another example of a 'tempest in a teacup' and certainly bends your theology into a topiary creation.
I find no heavy importance of the "tree" in the earthly of heavenly Sanctuary....so I will let it rest in heaven till I get there.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/11/05 02:53 AM
Just exactly how unlike Jesus are we the moment we are born again of the Spirit? "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3:6. And, what did Paul and Ellen White mean when they wrote:
Romans
8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.
3T 518
We are required to imitate His example. {3T 518.1}
5T 466
If you are Christians you will imitate His example. {5T 466.3}
EV 641
Jesus is a perfect pattern, and we must imitate His example. A Christian is the highest type of man, a representative of Christ. {Ev 641.2}
2T 628
We cannot equal the example, but we should copy it. {2T 628.1}
2T 549
He is a perfect and holy example, given for us to imitate. We cannot equal the pattern; but we shall not be approved of God if we do not copy it and, according to the ability which God has given, resemble it. {2T 549.1}
Posted By: John Boskovic
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/11/05 05:38 AM
Obviously Paul says nothing about “imitating”
Imitate is by very nature an outward action. It means to copy someone’s actions. As salvation is a heart-spirit matter, here only genuine reality can exist. Nobody can imitate spirit, character, and heart.
Importantly, “Imitate” is not a scriptural thought. The word/thought is not used in the scripture.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/11/05 08:55 AM
Imitate, in Victorian terminolgy, was used to mean "follow the example" in actions and carries no suggestion that that is the fullness of our christian experience.
It is not like "imitation vanilla".
It is more like an apprentice imitates his master in the workshop.
EGW is showing the Role Model, as our acid test, not suggesting that rebirth is aping Him.
I am surprised that one who advocates perfection in the style that you do, MM, seems to not comprehend the need for a replacement of a sin diseased mind with His Mind.
This is way more than being a good boy or attempting to obey the Law on your own steam, convicted of It's worth or not!
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/11/05 09:09 PM
quote:
When we submit ourselves to Christ, the heart is united with His heart, the will is merged in His will, the mind becomes one with His mind, the thoughts are brought into captivity to Him; we live His life. This is what it means to be clothed with the garment of His righteousness. Then as the Lord looks upon us He sees, not the fig-leaf garment, not the nakedness and deformity of sin, but His own robe of righteousness, which is perfect obedience to the law of Jehovah. {COL 311.4}
It's harder to find these things than it used to be. Ugh!
Anyway, the above quote brings out what I believe it means to imitate Christ, as EGW used the term.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/13/05 06:00 AM
I agree with Tom. I am surprised by the strong reaction against Sister White's insight regarding copying and imitating the perfect example of Jesus.
Tom, it appears that we got off topic. Did we adequately study the glory of God in the context of your header post?
1 Peter 2:21, 22
Christ [left] us an example, that ye should follow his steps, who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/13/05 06:26 AM
Sorry, MM but after the Tree sidetrack, and all of your questions being answered, you just never somehow got around to the original problem: Can you please address this simple, direct EGW quote about the glory of God, without just asking more questions?:
"This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. (DA 764)
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/13/05 06:34 AM
To help the topic along, I submit these clear statements:
"Had He appeared with the glory that was His with the Father before the world was, we could not have endured the light of His presence. That we might behold it and not be destroyed, the manifestation of His glory was shrouded. His divinity was veiled with humanity,--the invisible glory in the visible human form." {DA 23.1}
"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." {DA 107.4}
"In that thick darkness God's presence was hidden. He makes darkness His pavilion, and conceals His glory from human eyes. God and His holy angels were beside the cross. The Father was with His Son. Yet His presence was not revealed. Had His glory flashed forth from the cloud, every human beholder would have been destroyed. And in that dreadful hour Christ was not to be comforted with the Father's presence. He trod the wine press alone, and of the people there was none with Him." {DA 753.4}
Hope this is brought to the heart by the Holy Spirit.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/13/05 07:42 AM
Again, I am in total agreement that the unshielded glory of God kills sinners, even saved sinners. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God", and neither can it survive in presence of God's glory. We must first put on incorruptible flesh and blood. It takes holy flesh to stand before our holy God.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/13/05 10:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
Again, I am in total agreement that the unshielded glory of God kills sinners, even saved sinners. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God", and neither can it survive in presence of God's glory. We must first put on incorruptible flesh and blood. It takes holy flesh to stand before our holy God.
Now wait a minute now!....either this is a complete reversal of your hundreds of posts or I'm just plain doltish.
Please list a few lines form your posts that justify the term "again", MM
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/14/05 12:12 AM
I cannot remember where else I affirmed this idea. As a result of studying this topic with Tom I believe the glory of God is a consuming fire, not only in the symbolic sense, but also in the literal sense. The only problem with this insight is there is no precedence to confirm it. That is, God has never consumed anyone before using His glory.
Having said that, let me hasten to add, lest I be misunderstood, I also believe God will employ literal fire to punish and destroy unsaved sinners in the lake of fire. I also believe God was either directly or indirectly involved in destroying the antediluvians and the sodomites, and many more. I believe He is in absolute control of the affairs of men and angels, and that He decides how and when they will die.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/14/05 07:15 AM
MM: I cannot remember where else I affirmed this idea. As a result of studying this topic with Tom I believe the glory of God is a consuming fire, not only in the symbolic sense, but also in the literal sense. The only problem with this insight is there is no precedence to confirm it. That is, God has never consumed anyone before using His glory.
Tom: On what basis do you affirm this? (that the glory of God has never killed anybody) What would such a death look like? How do you know you would recognize it? Even if there weren't a precedent, why would that be a problem?
MM: Having said that, let me hasten to add, lest I be misunderstood, I also believe God will employ literal fire to punish and destroy unsaved sinners in the lake of fire.
Tom: If the glory of God slays the wicked, then they're dead, correct? How can they also be punished and destroyed after they are dead?
![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif)
MM: I also believe God was either directly or indirectly involved in destroying the antediluvians and the sodomites, and many more.
Tom: Noone disputes this.
MM: I believe He is in absolute control of the affairs of men and angels, and that He decides how and when they will die.
Tom: This isn't right, however. It is men who decide their own fate, not God.
quote:
"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Gal. 6:7. God destroys no man. Every man who is destroyed will destroy himself. When a man stifles the admonitions of conscience, he sows the seeds of unbelief and these produce a sure harvest.... {OHC 26.4}
If God decided the fate of men, then all men would be saved, because God is not willing that any should perish but would have all repent and come to the knowledge of the truth. Men are lost precisely for the reason that they go against God's will, and because He does *NOT* decide the fate of men.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/14/05 08:59 AM
Are you absolutely sure we reap what we sow? Or, does the plan of salvation alter the course of things?
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/14/05 09:57 PM
It applies.
quote:
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.(Gal. 6:8)
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/15/05 04:46 PM
Yes, of course, we reap what we sow. But not always the moment we sow it. In most cases, the wages of sin is delayed. Why? If we were allowed to experience the full, unaltered consequences of sin, the instant we sin, none of us would survive long enough to suffer sickness and sorrow and a lingering death. In fact, the human race would have ended with Adam and Eve the instant they ate the forbidden fruit. The plan of salvation totally alters the dynamics between sin and death. We do not reap what we sow the instant we sow it. Instead, we experience altered consequences, tailor-made by God for the good of everyone involved. Any consequences other than immediate death are unnatural, and are regulated by God Himself.
Posted By: myarsman
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/16/05 05:25 AM
Interesting discussion......
Sin is the desire of a "created being" to exist independently of its "Creator".
Fact of Life #1: No "created being" can exist independently of its "Creator". All created life forms are "eternally" dependent upon the "Creator/God" for their life-force/Breath of Life.
The "Natural Consequence" of a "created being" becoming "independent" of its "Creator" is instantaneous death or a "state of non-existence". (See Fact of Life #1)
Because of the "Grace of God" all "created beings" who sought to become "independent from God" were spared the "Natural Consequence" of their choice.
All except One......
When Adam and Eve chose to believe Satan's temptation that it was possible to be "like God" or IOW to become an "independent being" God spared them from suffering the Eternal Death that comes as a result of their choice.
But......
He allowed them to experience a form of Death that comes as a result of their being prohibited from eating of the Tree of Life. Their bodies were denied the essential nutrients that would allow them to continue to live forever. Through time their bodies would deteriorate to the point that it was no longer capable of sustaining life.
Jesus experienced the "Natural Consequences" of sin in that He died as a direct result of a "separation from God" whereby the "Breath of Life" was withdrawn from Him.
(Keep in mind that the soldiers/spectators were surprised to find that Jesus had died so quickly. They even pierced His side in order to confirm His death. Normally an individual could remain alive on a cross for many hours/days before finally succumbing to death.)
This is the same death that will be experience by the Wicked at the "End of Time".
The death that we experience today comes as a result of our bodies inability to sustain life as a result of injury or illness.
The death that will be experienced by the Wicked at the End of Time comes as a result of God withdrawing the "Breath of Life" from a "created being" that would not die otherwise because their body is still capable of sustaining life.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/16/05 07:39 PM
Bob, nice summary. But it implies that you disagree with idea that God will employ literal fire and brimstone to punish and destroy unsaved sinners, men and angels alike, in the lake of fire.
Posted By: myarsman
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/17/05 12:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mountain Man:
Bob, nice summary. But it implies that you disagree with idea that God will employ literal fire and brimstone to punish and destroy unsaved sinners, men and angels alike, in the lake of fire.
The fire and brimstone that falls upon the Wicked will in actuality be destroying their lifeless bodies. The Wicked will die when God withdraws the "Breath of Life" from their bodies. It is at that moment that they will cease to exist/live. The fire and brimstone will then completely destroy their bodies into eternal non-existence.
The God that I serve does not believe in a long drawn-out death mixed with excruciating pain that is to be meted out to the Wicked. Instead, their death will be mercifully quick and relatively pain-free.
With that said, I must also add that prior to their death, these individuals will experience extreme agony as they come to the realization of what they have lost because of their refusal to be atoned to God. In one aspect, their deaths will be merciful in that it will put them out of their misery.
This position is strongly supported by Scripture in that the "Sacrificial Lamb" was always slain before its carcass was placed upon the "Altar of Burnt Offerrings".
Secondly Christ death, which was a type of the death that the Wicked will suffer, was not caused by His being placed in a firey pit, whereby He was burned to death. He died as a result of God's "Breath of Life" being withdrawn from His body.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/17/05 02:39 AM
Bob, how do you explain the following insights. I'm not asking if you agree, instead, I'm asking what you think they say. Do they agree with your view of judgment and punishment and destruction?
EW 294, 295
Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. 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. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}
Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, "Amen!" {EW 294.2}
GC 544, 545
They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, "according to their works," but finally ending in the second death. Since it is impossible for God, consistently with His justice and mercy, to save the sinner in his sins, He deprives him of the existence which his transgressions have forfeited and of which he has proved himself unworthy. Says an inspired writer: "Yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be." And another declares: "They shall be as though they had not been." Psalm 37:10; Obadiah 16. Covered with infamy, they sink into hopeless, eternal oblivion. {GC 544.2}
GC 661
In union with Christ they judge the wicked, comparing their acts with the statute book, the Bible, and deciding every case according to the deeds done in the body. Then the portion which the wicked must suffer is meted out, according to their works; and it is recorded against their names in the book of death. {GC 660.4}
GC 673
The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Proverbs 11:31. They "shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts." Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch--Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. {GC 673.1}
Posted By: myarsman
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/17/05 03:20 AM
If you compare your recent post with my previous post, you will find that there is NO agreement as to how the Wicked will be destroyed in the end.
Again, the God that I serve is a merciful God and takes "no delight in the destruction of the Wicked". He will make their final death a quick and painless one.
Think about this for a moment. Imagine that you are standing in the Holy City as it descends to the earth and you witness a loved one, say your spouse, or child, or parent as they writhe in pain and agony in the "lake of fire".
How do you think that you would feel about that?
I know that I would not enjoy it in the least.
God has the ability to bring about the death of the Wicked in a very quick and efficient manner. As I have stated previously, it will be an act of mercy on His part because the Wicked will be experiencing extreme anguish at that time due to their realization of what they have lost.
As you probably can see, I do not agree with the "insight" that EGW has given on this topic. It would appear that she is still clinging to the old mideval belief in Hell and the final punishment of the Wicked in proportion to their wickedness.
There is no Biblical evidence that supports the belief that God prolongs the final punishment of the Wicked or makes it as painful as is possible to bear.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/17/05 04:00 AM
Bob, I appreciate your candid honesty. Not everyone interprets Sister White's insights as you and I have. But, according to the view you have embaced, the saints will witness the suffering of lost loved ones, albeit, of a shorter duration than the view I have embraced. In either case, I think that's why it says in the Bible that God will wipe away every tear. Indeed, it will be a sorrowful ordeal to watch. But our tears will not flow from a heart at war with God's decision to punish each unsaved sinner according to their works.
Revelation
7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Posted By: myarsman
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/17/05 04:59 AM
I don't neccessarily see the destruction of the Wicked as a "punishment" per se.
In reality, God is only giving the Wicked what they desire. They desire independence from God and this is what God is giving them. Unfortunately, independance from God has a consequence.....Death.
The Wicked will receive their independence from God, but this will result in their Eternal Death.
Yes, it will be difficult to witness, but by then we will have had 1000 years to review all the records and resolve in our own minds that the Eternal Death of the Wicked is in reality allowing them to receive what they want and deserve.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/17/05 09:39 AM
MM, you seem to have the view that the wicked will be destroyed because God does something to them. This is not the view of inspiration, which is that they die because of their sin, *not* because of God. For example:
quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. {DA 764.1}
Note the emphasis that it is *NOT* God's actions which lead to the death of the wicked, but their own.
Consider the following:
quote:
The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4}
Note that it is the SAME THING which causes life for the righteous which destroys the wicked. This makes it clear that it is not something arbitrary God is doing which results in their destruction, but something about themselves which causes that which is life to the righteous to be death to them. The problem is with the wicked, not with God. God is innocent of their death.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/18/05 06:55 AM
You are right, there is nothing arbitrary about the punishment and destruction of the unsaved. God gave them ample opportunity to be saved, and they chose the death penalty instead. The idea that God takes a passive, inactive role in their punishment and death ignores the EW and GC quotes posted above. Your favorite DA quote does not change the obvious meaning of the EW and GC quotes.
Your DA quote is simply saying that God isn't going to execute the death penalty without just cause. Everything you said about God being the source of life is true. But He is also, by default, the source of death. That is, when He withdraws the source of life, death is the result. Your DA quote is merely saying that God doesn't withdraw the source of life, which causes death, without just cause.
But the EW and GC quotes clearly say that God will also employ fire and brimstone to punish the unsaved according to their works. The intensity and duration of their fiery punishment is directly proportionate to their sinfulness. That is clearly what is taught in the EW and GC quotes. No amount of spiritualizing can change the obvious and literal meaning of the plain words employed to describe the fiery fate of the unsaved.
Yes, the glory of God is a consuming fire. Yes, God is the source of life. Yes, if we refuse to be saved we chose to separate ourselves from the source of life. But that's not the end of the story. The Bible and the SOP go on to describe how God will also use fire and brimstone to punish and then destroy the unsaved according to their sinfulness, that their life will end when the last sin has been punished.
In response to this "strange act" unfallen beings will proclaim, “Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments. . . Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works.” Rev 16:5 and 18:6. “Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, "Amen!" EW 294.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/18/05 07:56 AM
MM: You are right, there is nothing arbitrary about the punishment and destruction of the unsaved. God gave them ample opportunity to be saved, and they chose the death penalty instead. The idea that God takes a passive, inactive role in their punishment and death ignores the EW and GC quotes posted above. Your favorite DA quote does not change the obvious meaning of the EW and GC quotes.
Tom: In affirming I am "right" that there is nothing arbitrary about the punishment and destruction of the wicked, I assume you accept that argument from DA 764 which provides the argument as to why the destruction of the wicked is not arbitrary. It is because they cut themselves off from God, the only source of life, that they die. That's just what EGW writes.
I would say that my "favorite" DA quote does not change the EW or GC quotes, but it explains them. The visions which she received, she explained in plain language. That plain language should not be ignored or set asied.
MM: Your DA quote is simply saying that God isn't going to execute the death penalty without just cause. Everything you said about God being the source of life is true. But He is also, by default, the source of death.
Tom: This is a lie from the devil.
quote:
Satan represents God's law of love as a law of selfishness. He declares that it is impossible for us to obey its precepts. The fall of our first parents, with all the woe that has resulted, he charges upon the Creator, leading men to look upon God as the author of sin, and suffering, and death. Jesus was to unveil this deception. (DA 24)
God is not the source of death. That is a lie. It is Satan who is the author of death. Death results from disobedience, because the nature of sin is to bring about death. Many Scriptures bring this out, including texts written by Ezekiel, Paul, and James.
MM: That is, when He withdraws the source of life, death is the result. Your DA quote is merely saying that God doesn't withdraw the source of life, which causes death, without just cause.
Tom: That's not what it says at all. Here's the quote again. Take a look at it.
quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. {DA 764.1}
Where does it say what you are asserting? Where is the theme of "just cause" discussed anywhere? That's not the issue at all. You can look at the whole page, or the whole chapter, and you will see that "just cause" is not discussed anywhere.
MM: But the EW and GC quotes clearly say that God will also employ fire and brimstone to punish the unsaved according to their works.
Tom: I've asked you this before, but I don't believe you've answered, so I'll try again. If the glory of God causes the death of the wicked, then are they not already dead? If they are dead, how can God kill them again? How can they be punished once they are dead? If they're dead, they're dead.
MM: The intensity and duration of their fiery punishment is directly proportionate to their sinfulness. That is clearly what is taught in the EW and GC quotes. No amount of spiritualizing can change the obvious and literal meaning of the plain words employed to describe the fiery fate of the unsaved.
Yes, the glory of God is a consuming fire. Yes, God is the source of life. Yes, if we refuse to be saved we chose to separate ourselves from the source of life. But that's not the end of the story.
Tom: Death pretty much *is* the end of the story. Once the glory of God destroys the wicked, that's it, end of story.
[the rest snipped, having been covered above]
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/18/05 05:55 PM
Tom, Satan cannot give life. Only God can give life. And, you have repeatedly affirmed that death is the result of God withdrawing life. Satan cannot withdraw life. If Satan were to die right now, the rest of us would go on dying without him. We do not need Satan to die, or for God to withdraw life. Neither can we unplug ourselves from God. We do not possess the creative power to plug or unplug ourselves from the source of life. Only God possesses such power. If and when God chooses to unplug someone it will be because they have forfeited the right to live. It is not the result of an arbitrary or capricious decision. It is because they have not chosen Jesus, have not chosen to be saved.
The glory of God can be regulated to produce varying affects. Moses is a case in point. The unsaved standing before the great white throne is another case in point. If we combine the quotes we’ve been posting it is obvious, to me, that both forces (glory and brimstone) are at work in the punishment and destruction of the unsaved. The glory of God will be employed in such a way that the unsaved are destroyed from the least to the greatest of sinners. Each person is punished according to their sinfulness, and then they finally die.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/19/05 02:39 AM
Pardon me, MM, but I'm still not getting how your comments harmonize with the quote. Here's the quote again, for ease of reference:
quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. {DA 764.1}
Here are your comments, with my comments intermixed.
MM: Tom, Satan cannot give life.
Tom: Correct, but he can cause death. He is the "author of sin and death." Death results from sin, and sin was the invention of Satan.
MM: Only God can give life. And, you have repeatedly affirmed that death is the result of God withdrawing life.
Tom: Where did I say this? I don't think I've said this once, let alone "repeatedly".
MM: Satan cannot withdraw life. If Satan were to die right now, the rest of us would go on dying without him. We do not need Satan to die, or for God to withdraw life. Neither can we unplug ourselves from God. We do not possess the creative power to plug or unplug ourselves from the source of life. Only God possesses such power.
Tom: I don't see how your statements follow from the above quote. They seem to be opposed to EGW's thought: "God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life." Note she says that the sinner "separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. The point she is making here (and not just in this sentence, but thought these several paragraphs) is that it is NOT God which is causing the death of the wicked. She says that several times.
MM: If and when God chooses to unplug someone it will be because they have forfeited the right to live. It is not the result of an arbitrary or capricious decision. It is because they have not chosen Jesus, have not chosen to be saved.
Tom: Again, this is not following EGW's thought in any way. At least not in any way I can see. The quote is above. You could refer to it in some way and link it to your thoughts; that might help me to follow your logic.
MM: The glory of God can be regulated to produce varying affects.
Tom: The glory of God is His character. You are referring to it as if it were some impersonal substance. It is God revealing Himself as He is. He limits that revelation now to the point that we are able to bear it. In the destruction of the wicked, the revelation of His character, His goodness, will result in their death.
MM: Moses is a case in point. The unsaved standing before the great white throne is another case in point. If we combine the quotes we’ve been posting it is obvious, to me, that both forces (glory and brimstone) are at work in the punishment and destruction of the unsaved. The glory of God will be employed in such a way that the unsaved are destroyed from the least to the greatest of sinners. Each person is punished according to their sinfulness, and then they finally die.
Tom: I'm not getting this. The glory quotes bring out the the light of the glory of God "slays" the wicked. That means they are dead. There's no more punishment or killing possible, because THEY ARE DEAD (pardon the shouting). If they're already dead from the glory, then the brimstone cannot further punish them or kill them, right?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/19/05 04:47 AM
Tom, if, as you say, we have the ability to unplug ourselves from the source of life, why is it necessary, then, for God to resurrect the unsaved? Suicide, dying of old age, or any other form of dying the first death, does not constitute unplugging ourselves from the source of life. Neither can Satan unplug us. Killing us or causing us to die the first death does not constitute Satan unplugging us from the source of life.
Only God can unplug us from the source of life in the lake of fire. Those who come up in the second resurrection cannot kill themselves, or plug themselves, in order to escape the unshielded glory of God, or the fire and brimstone that God will rain down upon them. If it were possible to unplug themselves, then surely at least some would do it, at least part way through, to avoid being punished according to their sinfulness. The fact they don’t is proof, to me, they can’t.
The glory of God does not destroy all sinners, men and angels, at exactly the same time. I’m sure you agree. Therefore, it is entirely possible that some will die right away, while others will die later on, with Satan being the last to die. Each person will punish and die according to their sinfulness, the duration and intensity being equal to their sinfulness. Since fire and brimstone will rain down upon the earth at the same time God allows His regulated glory to affect men and angels according to their sinfulness, it is not difficult to imagine unsaved sinners being affected by both God’s glory and the brimstone.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/20/05 02:00 AM
MM: Tom, if, as you say, we have the ability to unplug ourselves from the source of life, why is it necessary, then, for God to resurrect the unsaved?
Tom: You keep putting words in my mouth! I simply quoted from EGW, as far as I can tell. *She* wrote:
quote:
God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God."
I think all I did was quote this. I've asked you in the past to quote what I'm writing. This is what I do for you. I reproduce what you write word for word, so there can be no question as to my mispresenting a thought. You, in general, don't do a very job of representing my thought, so quoting would be prudent for you, I think.
Rosangela, OTOH, does do a very good job representing my thoughts, so her example would be a good one to follow. She either presents my own words or asks for clarification when she is restating a thought. I do the same thing. I present what I perceive to be your thoughts, and ask you if I have understood them correctly. Several times you have written something like "as you have repeatedly asserted" and I have responded "where did I say that even once, let alone repeatedly" and you don't respond, which makes me think that you were indeed mispeaking. Let's be careful to get one another's thoughts right! It's difficult enough to communicate, even when we *are* representing one another's thoughts correctly.
MM: Suicide, dying of old age, or any other form of dying the first death, does not constitute unplugging ourselves from the source of life. Neither can Satan unplug us. Killing us or causing us to die the first death does not constitute Satan unplugging us from the source of life.
Only God can unplug us from the source of life in the lake of fire. Those who come up in the second resurrection cannot kill themselves, or plug themselves, in order to escape the unshielded glory of God, or the fire and brimstone that God will rain down upon them. If it were possible to unplug themselves, then surely at least some would do it, at least part way through, to avoid being punished according to their sinfulness. The fact they don’t is proof, to me, they can’t.
Tom: I'm sorry, but I don't see how anything you're writing about fits in with the following quote:
quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. {DA 764.1}
At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}
Can you explain this for me? From the above quote, I see that:
1)The destruction of the wicked is not an arbitrary act of power on God's part.
2)Instead they die because they cut themselves off from God, who alone is the source of life.
3)The wicked reap that which they have sown.
4)Receiving the results of their own sin, the rejectors of God's mercy place themselves so out of harmony with God's character that His presence becomes to them a consuming fire.
5)His glory destroys the wicked.
6)Had God destroyed the wicked at the beginning, it would have appeared that God was killing them rather than that they were receiving the inevitable results of their sin. To avoid this misunderstanding, which would have resulted in doubts about God's goodness, God permitted sin to coninue on.
These statements I have written, 1) through 6), I see as being clearly written in the DA quote above. I'm just restating them. EGW's stated position here is in perfect harmony with what I believe. Her position is clearly stated and well reasoned. It makes logical sense, and presents God in a positive light, in a way which is harmony with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
MM: The glory of God does not destroy all sinners, men and angels, at exactly the same time. I’m sure you agree. Therefore, it is entirely possible that some will die right away, while others will die later on, with Satan being the last to die. Each person will punish and die according to their sinfulness, the duration and intensity being equal to their sinfulness. Since fire and brimstone will rain down upon the earth at the same time God allows His regulated glory to affect men and angels according to their sinfulness, it is not difficult to imagine unsaved sinners being affected by both God’s glory and the brimstone.
Tom: I'm sorry I'm not following you here. The Spirit of Prophesy writes that the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked. Since His glory "slays" them, they are dead. If they are dead, they can't be killed again or punished. They've already been punished because they are dead.
It sounds like you are saying that the glory of God doesn't really kill the wicked, it just kind of maims them, so that fire and brimstone can finish the job. The lake of fire would kill anybody in a moment, wouldn't it? So using a literal lake of fire as a means of punishment and death would not allow for proportional punishment, would it?
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/21/05 06:07 AM
Tom, you seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Sister White plainly teaches the lake of fire is not literal fire and brimstone, like Sodom and Gomorrah, but rather it is a metaphor for the glory of God, and that the glory of God slays the unsaved instantly, at the exact same time.
The unsaved die because, after God resurrects them and restores life to them, they somehow separate themselves from the Source of life, and while living thus cut off from the Source of life, the glory of God becomes to them a source of punishment or instant death. And so they die, at exactly the same time, irrespective of their sinfulness.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/21/05 02:38 AM
MM: Tom, you seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Sister White plainly teaches the lake of fire is not literal fire and brimstone, like Sodom and Gomorrah, but rather it is a metaphor for the glory of God, and that the glory of God slays the unsaved instantly, at the exact same time.
The unsaved die because, after God resurrects them and restores life to them, they somehow separate themselves from the Source of life, and while living thus cut off from the Source of life, the glory of God becomes to them a source of punishment or instant death. And so they die, at exactly the same time, irrespective of their sinfulness.
Tom: Thank you for asking for clarification on my thoughts. Here is the statement which I think is the clearest on this subject:
quote:
Then the end will come. God will vindicate His law and deliver His people. Satan and all who have joined him in rebellion will be cut off. Sin and sinners will perish, root and branch, (Mal. 4:1),--Satan the root, and his followers the branches. The word will be fulfilled to the prince of evil, "Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; . . . I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. . . . Thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Then "the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be;" "they shall be as though they had not been." Ezek. 28:6-19; Ps. 37:10; Obadiah 16. {DA 763.4}
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. {DA 764.1}
At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}
This statement says:
1)The destruction of the wicked is not an arbitrary act of power on God's part.
2)Instead they die because they cut themselves off from God, who alone is the source of life.
3)The wicked reap that which they have sown.
4)Receiving the results of their own sin, the rejectors of God's mercy place themselves so out of harmony with God's character that His presence becomes to them a consuming fire.
5)His glory destroys the wicked.
6)Had God destroyed the wicked at the beginning, it would have appeared that God was killing them rather than that they were receiving the inevitable results of their sin. To avoid this misunderstanding, which would have resulted in doubts about God's goodness, God permitted sin to coninue on.
Note that she quotes Malachi 4, which is replete with fire.
The quote brings out that the wicked are killed by the glory of God. The Scriptures bring out that the earth will be cleansed by fire. Rosangela has suggested that it is God's glory which causes this to happen. This seems entirely plausable to me. However, if the glory of God slays the wicked, and there is a literal fire which cleanses the earth, it seems obvious to me that the wicked must already have been punished and dead before this time. A literal fire would kill the wicked instantly.
What I believe is that the glory of God, which is a revelation of His character, brings pain, suffering and death to the wicked. God would wish that this was not so, but the wicked have formed characters which are so out of harmony with His character that this is what happens. From the perspective of the righteous, I believe they will just see God being how He always is; patient and kind, explaining why things are the way they are, answering the questions the wicked have. This process is very painful for the wicked.
I've used the analogy from the Chronicals or Narnia several times. It explains the process as well as I can. A group of children come across a bitter old man living as a hermit in the woods. They ask Aslan (a lion, representing Christ) why He doesn't say something to comfort the old man (because they have themselves received much comfort from Aslan -- since he is so kind to them, and has helped them, why couldn't he do the same for the old man?) Aslan replies that no matter what he says, all the old man hears is a lion roaring.
God is kind, patient and gracious with the wicked, just the way He always is. He can't be any other way that He is. He IS as Jesus Christ revealed Him to be. He is as described in 1 Cor. 13. This is just what He will be like in the judgment. However, God being God, results in the pain, suffering and death for those who have constructed characters out of harmony with His principles, the principles of love.
The statment that the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked is most helpful here. I've brought this out many times now, although I've yet to see it commented on. The point is that it's the same thing which gives life to one party that destroys the other. If this one point is grasped, it would go a long way, I believe, to unravleing the big picture.
One final point that I wish to make clear is that I do believe the punishment of the wicked will be proportional. They will suffer in accordance with the light that they have rejected. The greater the rejected light, the greater the suffering when the glory of God (His kindness, His goodness, His character) is revealed to them. This is not an arbitrary process on the part of God, but part and parcel to what the wicked have done to themselves. It is the wicked who are responsible for their own death, not God. The judgment will reveal that God is totally innocent of sin and death.
Posted By: Mountain Man
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/21/05 09:28 PM
Thank you for the clarification.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/21/05 11:07 PM
Thank you for your gratefulness.
Posted By: Ikan
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/22/05 10:31 AM
Thank You for your clarity and longanimity,Tom. It's a major paradim shift for anyone, and sadly, forums are the worst place to attempt to study this topic, I have discovered.
By the way...you have not given me your address for the free book I was offering MM, but he lateraled to you. Please e-mail me.
Posted By: Tom
Re: Great questions by MountainMan - 07/22/05 10:00 PM
Although forums might not be the best place for affecting someone's opinion (as most of the people who participate have opinions set in stone), it is a good place to share thoughts and information. These discussions have helped me to clarify my thoughts immensely, and you have shared many things of which I was not aware.