Here is the link to the study/discussion material for this study:

http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/08d/less09nkjv.html

The key thought or purpose of this study is "To summarize some of the ways that the New Testament interprets the death of Christ."

Some thoughts from the top of my head.

1.Peter presents Christ's death as the means by which we are brought to God. I think this is 1 Pet. 3:18.

2.Paul speaks of Christ's death as the means by which Satan and his minions are defeated. He does this in a number of places. I'll mention two here, Col. 2, around vs. 15, and Hebrews 2:8 or 2:9 I think. This is probably the most common application of Christ's death. There are probably a couple of dozen texts in the NT which deal with this theme.

3.Paul speaks of Christ's death as the means by which God's righteousness and grace are revealed. He does this in a number of places. To name two, Romans 3 around vs. 23 and Titus 2 around verse 14.

4.Paul speaks of Christ's death as the means by which we are justified. Two places which come to mind are Romans 4, the last verse, and Romans 10, around vs. 10.

5.Paul speaks of Christ's death as the means by which we are reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5 deals with this theme in detail. This is similar to Peter's idea in the first item.

6.Paul speaks of Christ's death as a revelation of God's love. He does this in many places, but Eph. 3, the end of the chapter, where he speaks of the height and depth and length of breadth of God's love, might be the best example. Of course, Jesus spoke of this theme in John 3:16, where His death is the means by which a believer is born again.

Along this same line, Paul speaks of Christ's death in terms of Christ's giving Himself for us, or giving Himself for our sins, or even becoming sin for us.

7.Christ speaks of His death as the work of a servant, where He speaks of His death as a "ransom." This ransom was a means by which those in bondage could be redeemed. Other places speak of His death in terms of redemption.

8.Christ's death is spoken of in terms of healing. I think Matt. 8:17 makes a reference to Isa. 53. Peter also refers to Isa. 53, and presents this same idea of Christ's death as healing. In the Greek, the word "healing" and "salvation" were one and the same word, so this theme appears in many places.

9.Christ's death is spoken of in terms of His bearing sin, or being cursed, or becoming sin. This also looks to have an implicit reference to Isa. 53.

10.Christ's death is referred to as the fulfillment of the ceremonial law. It is spoken of in reference to His priesthood in detail in Hebrews.

Interesting in relation to this quote from the Sabbath Afternoon section of the study/discussion material:

Then there is this quote from Sunday's section:

And then there is the following that I reformatted, also from Sunday's section:

Thoughts on any of these last few posts and quotes?

Regarding 105019, everyone agrees there are many metaphors used to express Christ's death, and that no one metaphor is sufficient. A question to consider is if there is a metaphor around which the others should be gathered. Traditionally the penal substitution metaphor eclipses every other metaphor, and people tend to speak of that one to the exclusion of others. I think the Great Controversy view offers a more satisfactory way of "gathering together" the metaphors. I say "Great Controversy" because that's a term we are familiar with as SDA's; other churches know this motif in terms of "Christus Victor."

I think if one thinks in terms of what the problem is that needed to be solved, that all the motifs fall into place. For example, EGW wrote:



This speaks of the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission, which would certainly suggest that this purpose could be used as a motif around which other ideas could be grouped (after all, if "whole purpose" doesn't suggest this, what would?)

Regarding 150020, I mentioned this (#7).

Regarding 150021, this is also #7. Well, part of it is. The idea that human beings are slaves which were redeemed by Christ was mentioned. The idea that there is a debt involved that can only be paid by death, no Scripture is cited, unless Romans 6:6,23 was meant to be referenced in regards to this.

Romans 6:6 says:



The idea here is not one of a debt being paid by death, but of our old man being crucified with Christ that we might be freed from sin. Gal. 2:20 has this same idea.



This reminds I was going to mention Phil. 2:5-8, but forgot. Her comments here on Gal. 2:20 brings out the idea of Phil. 2:5-8, which speaks to the incredible condescension and humility of Christ, which climaxed in His obedience unto death. Of course, Christ's humility merely serves to reveal the Father's true character, because Christ did not His own will, but the will of His Father.



And this says nothing at all about a debt being paid be death either. Another version says, "Sin pays its wages: death." James puts it like this:



The thought expressed in Scripture is that sin results in death. Ellen White expresses the thought here:



Death is the inevitable result of sin.

Regarding the thought itself, that there existed a debt which could only be paid by death, I think that idea is sound, as expressed here:



EGW expresses a similar thought here:

I completely agree with this statement of Sunday's lesson, but Tom's view disagrees with it.

I appreciate the all encompassing life and death of Jesus. It gives God the legal right to ransom and redeem penitent sinners; it satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice; and it serves to vindicate God's law and character.

The view I've been presenting is that sin is deadly. If sin were innocuous, as has been implied, *then* God could pretend it never existed, as it wouldn't make any difference if God took actions in regards to it or not. This assertion is completely false and unfounded, in regards to the view I've been presenting, since this view asserts that sin is *not* innocuous.



Sin is not innocuous, but has "fatal effects." The inevitable result of sin is death. So the assertion that God could pretend it didn't exist is absurd.

Tom,

You say that pardon removes sin, that God forgets sin without taking actions in regard to it - IOW, He ignores sin by pretending it never existed. The fact that sin brings bad consequences has nothing to do with this, for these bad consequences many times affect those who didn't have any participation in that particular sin.


No, it's not. You say that the inevitable result of sin is death only for those who do not repent. In relation to those who repent, God pretends their sin never existed, and the same is true in relation to the death sentence they were subject to.

This was Ellen White. I quoted what she said:





No, this wouldn't work. The reason this wouldn't work is that sin is deadly. The sinner must be healed, or saved, from its fatal effects. The sin must be removed. You'll notice this is just what the quote says, there is One who can "can take away sin and save the sinner." Since sin is deadly, it must be taken away to save the sinner.



Sin has both bad effects on the one doing the sin and on the one against whom the sin is done. The fact that sin also has negative effects against others doesn't mean it doesn't also have negative effects against the sinner himself. Indeed, it has "fatal effects." (PP 431)



Sure it is! If you take some poison, some action must be taken to save your life, because poison has fatal effects. If one pretends the poison does not exist, you will die.



Christ has power to heal the repenting sinner, which is just what is needed. Fatal effects cannot be dealt with by pretending they don't exist.



No, I never said that. Consider poison, to which sin is likened. If you take poison, it may be possible to save your life by pumping your stomach, for example. Does the fact that your life was saved by taking measures to deal with the poison mean that poison does not result in death? Of course not. Similarly the principle that sin results in death is not negated by repentance.



No, God cannot pretend sin never existed, for the reasons I pointed out above. Regarding the inevitable result of sin, here's the context:



She makes the argument that the death of the wicked is due to their own choice, as opposed to something God does to them. She points out that had God "left" Satan to reap the full result of his sin, this would have led to a misunderstanding, specifically, it would not have been understood that the inevitable result of death is sin.

After Christ's death, the angels no longer suffer this misunderstanding. Now they know the inevitable result of sin is death, and they understand how this works, because of Christ's death. It's not a conincidence that Ellen White's explanation of this is in the chapter "It Is Finished," which is focusing on the results of Christ's death. One of the results is that the mechanism of death has been illuminated so that when God "leaves" Satan, and those who have chosen to follow him, to "reap that which they have sown," this will properly be understood as a choice the wicked themselves have made, as opposed to misunderstood (as it would have been, had God "left" Satan to die right away, at the beginning of the Great Controversy) as something God arbitrarily does to them.

For example:



This explains how Satan, or a follower of him, cuts himself off from life.

Once we understand the mechanism of how sin causes death, the solution will make sense. What's the solution? It's explained in the quote above, from PP. Here's another place that discusses it:



This brings out that the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was the "revelation of God." Now if sin is deadly, and we are led into it by deception regarding God's character, it makes perfect sense that the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission would be the "revelation of God."

Tom, the following passages refute your idea that sin kills sinners. They plainly teach that sinners would live forever, would be immortal, if allowed to eat of the tree of life. Obviously, then, sin does not kill sinners. If sin kills sinners, as you say, then eating from the tree of life would not prevent them from dying.

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.

GC 533
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}

SR 388
I heard an angel ask, "Who of the family of Adam have passed that flaming sword and have partaken of the tree of life?" I heard another angel answer, "Not one of the family of Adam has passed that flaming sword and partaken of that tree; therefore there is not an immortal sinner." The soul that sinneth, it shall die an everlasting death--a death from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased. {SR 388.1}

Let's say I claim that a certain poison kills. You counter, "No, this poison doesn't kill, because it says here in this medical journal that if you have your stomach pumped, you can survive." The fact that there is a remedy for the poison does not mean that the poison does not kill.

The tree of life has healing powers. We are explicitly told this by the SOP, and the Bible itself says that its leaves are for the healing of the nations. If the tree of life did not have healing powers, you could try to make an argument along the lines of what you are saying. But given the following circumstances:

a.A person does something, say X, which is harmful, causing death if an action, say Y, is not taken.
b.The person does not do Y.
c.The person dies.

You can't argue from this that X is not deadly because had the person done Y they wouldn't have died.

All your argument proves is that the Tree of Life had healing powers.

And, Tom, you've missed the point: sin does not inevitably lead to death - death results from judgement, which results from a withdrawal of mercy. Sin's fruit of death is neither naturally fatal nor is hell's occurence just the appearance of God's glory: God's discretion metes out judgement as and when his justice deems it fit. Sin doesn't kill, because sin doesn't kill: sinners suffer annihilation when God says - "at the right time".

Colin, what you wrote looks to be diametrically opposed to what I've been quoting:



It is "not" an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. Instead, the rejecters of God's mercy reap that which they have sown. They choose the service of sin; they separate themselves from God; they thus cut themselves off from life.

Here's something by Ty Gibson:


It is commonly thought that the connection between sinand death is simply that if we don't repent of our sins God will kill us. Often no actual, intrinsic relationship is discerned between sin and death. But even a casual consideration of Scripture on this point persuades us otherwise. Notice just these few examples:












All of these Scriptures portray an organic relationship between sin and death. Sin is set forth as a law, or power, which itself gives birth to death. It is a sowing and reaping principle. Plant carrot seed in the ground and carrots will grow for eventual harvest. Nobody plants carrot seed and then expects God to drop a bag of carrots from the sky as a reward for planting the seed. To the contrary, we understand that there is a n actual connection between the act of planting and the eventual reaping...

Just as the principles of love lead to life, so "sin, when it is finished, bringeth for death" (James 1:15). "As righteousness tendeth to life, so he that pursueth evil pursueth it to his own death" (Proverbs 11:19). When the bible says, "the way of transgressors is hard" (Proverbs 13:15), it does not mean, for example, that if you drink alcohol and drive, God will send an angel to push your car into oncoming traffic. It means, rather, that the alcohol will impair your judgment and balance, which could cause you to lose control of your car and wreck. It doesn't mean that if you smoke cigarettes for twenty years, God will miraculously create cancer in your body, but rather that smoking causes cancer. The same holds true for all sin and suffering, and for sin in its ultimate outcome of final destruction.

And MM's quotes? Love isn't the only thruth revealed about God in the Bible!

Tom, your analogy doesn't prove your point because your point is assumed in your analogy. That is, your analogy assumes sin kills and that the fruit of life is an antidote. Which is totally false. The quotes I posted above support what I've been sharing. And Colin's points are apropos. Also, the healing properties of the leaves of the tree of life apply to people in heaven and in the new earth. Obviously, therefore, it has nothing to with sin or sinning.

Very nicely put, Colin. Thank you.

if sin doesnt kill, why do we die?

im not dealing with the ultimate annihilation idea, just why do we die now?

how/why did adam and eve die?

after the flood why did man start dying sooner and sooner?

Often we tell our children to brush their teeth every night. Do we do this because if they dont we will sneak into their rooms at night and put holes in there teeth? Or are we teaching a principle that not brushing will have natural results that will not be good for their teeth?

It's our basic morality - ability to die, a material consequence of a spiritual reality: dead in sin, eventually physically die as souls, too. Average lifespan since Eden has steadily dropped, according to lowered life expectancy - God setting the decline precisely. Mortal death is natural for mortals, not so?! - everlasting annihilation is extra.

interesting wording.

i dont know if you are answering my question or not since you didnt address it to me, but...:)

so, ok. legitimate point. but, after the flood, man had only meat to eat until the reaping and sowing got done, besides whatever natural might have come up on its own.

so, was it "natural mortality" that made mens longevity shrink so dramatically so quickly?

Teresaq, if I may share a thought. The reason sinners die a slow, gradual first death is because God denies them access to eat of the tree of life. Otherwise, sinners would live forever. Which is not to say they cannot be murdered.

"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 forever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 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." (Genesis 3:20)

Thus, the Bible teaches that sin does not kill sinners. Sin is not an active, independent agent that goes around killing sinners. Yes, the results of certain forms of sinning can lead to death. But this isn't true of all sins. For example, if two people love each other and decide to live together without getting married it will not result in death. That is, living in sin in this way will not kill them.

so, you dont see a link between eating meat and dying quicker?

regarding two people living together foregoing the sanction of the state, did we decide that is a sin or did God? i really dont know, and it could be noone knows for sure in each case.

regardless, im sure there would be a feeling of guilt eating at some of them.

if sin doesnt kill, then why does God hate it? if we could sin and be happy, is God just arbitrary and going to kill us because He made some arbitrary rules that we're breaking?

i find it interesting when i read my bible that "violence" is when God acts.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

at the second coming, the wicked surround the righteous wanting to kill them. then they turn on each other and massive slaughter ensues.

at the third coming, again the wicked surround the new jerusalem with the intent of conquering, then they turn on each other and massive slaughter ensues. until fire consumes them.

so id say sin kills. if we all followed after God, with holy hearts, there would be a fraction of the bloodshed and suffering going on in our world.

Teresaq, I agree sin results in sinners suffering and dying. But it is not sin that kills them. Instead, it is the results of sinning that can lead to suffering and death. For example, it is a sin to murder someone. In such cases it is sinners that causes suffering and death - not sin. But as I mentioned above, not all sins result in death. Nevertheless, any time anyone lives out of harmony with God's will they will suffer in one way or another. In some cases they will suffer unrest, suffer from a God-sized hole in their heart.

ok. but i think that is pretty much what i meant when i said sin kills.

i dont really think i thought of sin as outside of me attacking me.

Back to lesson for a moment: righteousness is defined as legal justification but moreover personal participation in Christ's Gospel - hopefully meaning justification by faith is both legal and the more so experiential - a truth very reluctantly admitted, to my knowledge. If J&S are jointly meant by this "righteousness", then it's nothing new and they side-stepped this gem of Gospel power truth despite coming so close to stating it. Does hinge on Christ taking sinful humanity for us to have this experience of justification by faith...

Here's how Waggoner defined "righteousness"






I agree with this. Although you and I understand the underlying concepts a bit differently, I think the point you are raising is right on, and a very important one, and your general point here holds regardless of which position one takes (yours or mine).

Do you agree with the following? Justification by faith takes place when we believe the Good News? (I'm essentially quoting from Robert J. Wieland). If so, we can agree on this.

I would also agree with the idea that our experience is grounded on objective truth, which is a point that Sequeira strongly makes.



I didn't follow your point here. Please repeat it, as it looks like it could be interesting.



I assume you meant this as an assertion, and just left out the "It" before "does." Assuming this is the case, I agree.

We had an interesting class discussion on this today in Sabbath School.

Here is a summary of what we discussed:

First we looked at and dissected the Memory Text.

Then we discussed the meaning of the word metaphor as in Metaphors of Salvation and came up with the word Symbols of Salvation, Images of Salvation.

We then looked at each metaphor or symbol of salvation.

The first one was redemption in Sunday's study. The meaning was stated in the first sentence, "Redemption is deliverance from debt or slavery through the payment of a ransom, and it’s an image used in the New Testament to interpret Christ’s death."

By sinning we became a slave to sin with the penalty being eternal death in that the wages of sin is eternal death. Christ redeemed us from that penalty by relinguishing His own life and by such an act paid the price for our redemption.

The next metaphor is reconciliation from Monday's section. The meaning was also stated in the very first sentence of Monday's section, "Reconciliation is the restoration of peaceful relationships between individuals or groups once at enmity." God reconciled Himself to us through Christ. This reconciliation on the part of God through Christ made it possible for us to proclaim the message of reconciliation as ambassadors of Christ.

The next metaphor is justification. When asked about the meaning of this, somebody said, "Just as if I had never sinned." This says it all from Tuesday's section: "We have here the combination of two images, redemption and justification, that describe and provide a legal basis for God’s decision to justify those who accept the righteousness of Christ (Rom. 4:3-6). God can do the unimaginable because Christ took our sin and died in our place (2 Cor. 5:21)."

The next metaphor in Wednesday's section is expiatory sacrifice. This means that Christ sacrificed Himself for us. Here are some excerpts from Wednesday's section: This was an act of substitution. Our redemption and reconciliation would not have been possible without the sacrificial blood of Christ.

This was as far as we got in our discussion time, however, we actually covered much of Thursday's section in that we stressed that it was the love of God that brought about our redemption, reconciliation, and justification through the expiatory sacrifice of Christ for us; the display of God's love in the death of Christ.

Before closing the discussion class, I read the following summary from Friday's section:

This is true, but it doesn't explain why this is necessary, nor how it works. Here's a comment regarding this:





Nowhere does the Bible say that God reconciled Himself to us. Here's a comment from Ty Gibson:



A bit later in the same book:



Another comment by a contemporary of Ellen White:



I won't go through each one, but I will point out that every metaphor, or symbol, you are mentioning in your explanation is only being looked at from one point of view. There is much more than happened by Christ's death then simply solving a legal problem.



This summary is good. It brings out several different aspects of Christ's death. The chapter "It Is Finished" from "The Desire of Ages" brings out many things that Christ's death accomplished.

It says God reconciled the world with Himself. This sentence has an ambiguous sense and can - should - be understood in both ways.

The trials and sufferings of Christ were to impress man with a sense of his great sin in breaking the law of God, and to bring him to repentance and obedience to that law, and through obedience to acceptance with God. He would impute His righteousness to man and so raise him in moral value with God that his efforts to keep the divine law would be acceptable. Christ's work was to reconcile man to God through His human nature, and God to man through His divine nature. {Con 38.1}

We see in the midst of the throne One bearing in hands, and feet, and side the marks of the suffering endured to reconcile man to God, and God to man. Matchless mercy reveals to us a Father, infinite, dwelling in light unapproachable, yet receiving us to Himself through the merits of His Son. The cloud of vengeance which threatened only misery and despair in the reflected light from the cross reveals the writing of God: "Live, sinner, live! ye penitent and believing souls, live! I have paid a ransom." {LHU 249.4}

Through the cross, man was drawn to God, and God to man. Justice moved from its high and awful position, and the heavenly hosts, the armies of holiness, drew near to the cross, bowing with reverence; for at the cross justice was satisfied. Through the cross the sinner was drawn from the stronghold of sin, from the confederacy of evil, and at every approach to the cross his heart relents and in penitence he cries, "It was my sins that crucified the Son of God." At the cross he leaves his sins, and through the grace of Christ His character is transformed. --The Signs of the Times, June 5, 1893.

His [Christ's] mission was to reconcile God to man, and man to God. {2SP 39.1}

For argument's sake, let's say 2 Cor. 5 isn't clear and throw it out of consideration, following the principle that ambiguous statements should be interpreted in the light of clear ones.



This says Christ suffered for sins that He might "bring us to God."



This says we are now "returned to God."



This presents the same idea.



This also brings out that we have been reconciled to God.

The lesson points out:



God was never at enmity with us. Therefore the reconciliation can only be one way. There is no need to "reconcile" someone who is not an angry party.

We have seen there are no unambiguous texts in Scripture which state that God was reconciled to us. However, there are many texts which bring out that we are reconciled to Him.

The following bears on our discussion concerning reconciliation:

What Is peace? Most people have the idea that it is a sort of ecstatic feeling. They think that peace with God means an indescribable heavenly feeling; and so they always look for that imaginary feeling as evidence that they are accepted with God.

But peace with God means the same thing that it means with men: it means simply the absence of war. As sinners we are enemies of God. He is not our enemy, but we are his enemies. He is not fighting against us, but we are fighting against him. How then may we have peace with him? Simply by ceasing to fight, and laying down our arms. We may have peace whenever we are ready to stop fighting....

"Great peace have they which love thy law." Ps. 119:165. "O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea." Isa. 48:18. Righteousness is peace, because our warfare against God was our sins that we cherished. God's life is righteousness, and he is the God of peace. Since the enmity is the carnal mind and its wicked works, peace must be the opposite, namely, righteousness. So it is simply the statement of an obvious fact, that being justified by faith we have peace with God. The righteousness that we have by faith carries peace with it. The two things can not be separated.(Articles on Romans, Waggoner;emphasis mine)

Repeating from Ty Gibson:



The movement is one way. All the "reconciliation" that God does towards us is simply to make it possible for us to move to Him. Here's a very poignant representation of this thought:

I would say "between individuals or groups once at enmity/disharmony." God wasn't at enmity with man, but was in disharmony with man. So reconciliation also encompasses this aspect.

What do you make of the EGW quotes I provided? They speak clearly of the need of reconciliation between man and God, and between God and man.

I think her comments were not dealing with the issue I was. Also, if the assertion is made that Scripture nowhere says something (e.g. that God was reconciled to man), the only way to deal with this is by citing some Scripture. As things remain, the assertion stands, that Scripture nowhere unambiguously states that God was/is reconciled to man, whereas it in many places states that man was/is reconciled to God.

God's disharmony with man was due entirely to man's having rebelled against God. Once man sets aside that rebellion, then there is peace. This is a one-way street. However, it's not a path that man can work out for himself. Man, of himself, is unable to return to God, and is unable to obey the law. So God must take it upon Himself to enable man to do these things. This is what I understand Ellen White's comments to be dealing with.

The whole thing comes down to what we see the problem being. If we see the problem as being a legal problem, with God not being able to perform an action (i.e. forgive) unless some other action occurs (i.e. someone is killed) then we will see the solution along these lines.

On the other hand, if the problem is perceived to be one of man's having been deceived in regards to God's character, which led man to distrust God, which led man to sin, with its attendant problems of guilt, which in turn leads to further misapprehension of God's character, more distrust, and more sin and guilt. The "whole purpose" of Christ's mission on earth was the "revelation of God," which takes care of the aforementioned problems. It also deals with the accusations Satan made in regards to God's character and His law before the entire universe.

At the root level, it looks like we have two different ways of looking at things. I'll post separately, next post, an explanation which makes sense to me. If you wish, you can point out what aspects of what's written you disagree with.

The law is not an arbitrary set of rules made up at random by God to prove His authority over us, but rather a practical explanation of what love looks like in real life…Sin is anything contrary to the character of God; more specifically, anything contrary to His love…

Love is God’s law, the principle by which He lives. It is a law because it is not arbitrary, but based on reality as it is, governing life by its righteous principles. Love is the law by which God made and sustains life….

Sin is the opposite, antagonistic principle at war with the law of love. Do not view sin as merely an alternative way of living, which happens to be harmlessly different from God’s way. God’s way is the only way to live, not because He happens to be more powerful and can arbitrarily punish us if we don’t comply, but because life is actually, intrinsically present only in God’s way, which is the way of love. The problem with sin is that it is wrong, actually, essentially, inherently wrong. And it is wrong for good reason, not just because the One in charge doesn’t like it. To be sure, God does not like sin, but He doesn’t like it because of what it does to is victims, not because He is a picky control freak who decided to come up with a list of arbitrary rules to keep us under His thumb. Sin, by its very nature, is anti-life. It is intrinsically destructive. Hence the Bible calls it the “law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2).

Once the nature of sin is understood, it is easy to see why sin is a law of death: sin is selfishness, the antithesis of love. As such, it leads inevitably to the exclusion of, and isolation from, the sustaining love and support of all others….

Because God’s love is the law of the universe, by which He created and sustains all things, the principles of that law are designed into our very natures. Within our psycho-emotional makeup, love is encoded as the law of life. When we violate that law, a malfunction signal issues a warning in the form of guilt. That part of our minds we call *conscience* senses discomfort with sin and identifies it as a destructive virus in the computer system, so to speak. Guilt is not arbitrarily imposed by God any more than His law is arbitrary. He is the Architect of conscience, but He is not the source of guilt. He made us with the capacity to feel guilt as a merciful and wise deterrent to sin, desiring, of course, that we would never experience its pain….

While God does not desire that anyone ever experience physical pain or the psychological pain of guilt, even more so He does not desire our utter destruction. Pain is a built-in mercy mechanism intended to aid in the preservation of life. Pain is not an indication that God is exercising some kind of power above, beyond, or contrary to His law of love in order to inflict suffering as an arbitrary punishment for sin. Punishment is organic to sin itself….

It is commonly thought that the connection between sin and death is imply that if we don’t repent of our sins God will kill us. Often no actual, intrinsic relationship is discerned between sin and death. But even a casual consideration of Scripture on this point persuades us otherwise. Notice just these few examples (quotes Gal. 6:7, 8; Rom. 6:16, 21-23; Rom. 8:6; Rom. 8:13; Prov. 8:36; James 1:15)…

So, when Paul says that holiness results in eternal life, he is not removing God from the equation and making life a mere naturalistic cause and effect matter. He is simply describing *how* God gives us eternal life….

God does not threaten, “If you keep sinning, I will kill you.” Rather, He warns, “If you continue in sin, you will die,” for “sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” And so He pleads, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die …? (Ezek. 33:11). We’re caught off guard by a question like this from God. We are more inclined to ask Him, “Why do You kill?” But He points to our sin and asks us, “Why do you choose death?”…

(quotes Rom. 5:11; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 2:24, 25; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15)
Please not the recurring point in the preceding verses:
• Through Christ we receive “atonement”; we are made one with God.
• The purpose of the substitutionary death of Christ is to “bring us to God”; not Him to us. God has demonstrated His reconciled position toward us in Christ.
• Through sin we have gone “astray”; but through the sacrifice of Christ we “are not returned” to God.
• The love of Christ, revealed in His death, causes us to cease living for self and to start living for Him; we are reestablished in the circle of selfless, other-centered love through the atoning death of Christ….

(discussing the three-party picture of the atonement)
1. The sinner, who has aroused the anger of God.
2. A wrathful God, who needs personal satisfaction that can only be derived from inflicting suffering and imposing death; only then will He even consider letting us off the hook with forgiveness.
3. A third-party victim, who is made to suffer and die as a substitute for the sinner.

There are a number of serious problems with the three-party picture, foremost of which is that it makes no legal or moral sense for an innocent third-party victim to suffer the penalty for the wrongdoer. If such an arrangement could actually satisfy God, then we would be forced to conclude that His law and His wrath are irrational and arbitrary, meaning there is no actual relationship between law and sin and death. If God’s wrath can be appeased by venting rage on an innocent third party, then it follows that there is no real problem with sin other than the fact that God doesn’t want us doing it: His law is arbitrary. Moreover, since we have failed to meet His arbitrary demands, we had better suffer ourselves or find a whipping boy to suffer in our place: His wrath is arbitrary.

Biblical Christianity proclaims, in extreme contrast to the third-party view of substitution, that God has given Himself as our Substitute, to bear our sin and its inherent, divinely-ordained penalty. Hence there are only two parties involved in the atonement: 1. The sinner, who has aroused in God a painful tension between a holy, rational anger against sin and an equally holy, rational mercy toward the sinner. 2. An infinitely just an definitely merciful God, who loves us so selflessly that He has chosen to give Himself to suffer and die as our Substitute….

So what actually happened on that hill far away as the Son of God hung between heaven and earth? Did Christ bear the wrath of God at Calvary? What part did the Father act in the suffering and death of Christ? A number of Scriptures bear a consistent testimony to answer these questions:

(quotes Acts 2:23, 24; Acts 4:24-28) ….

Did the Father cause the suffering and death of Christ?

Yes and no!

Yes, if we mean He delivered Him over to suffering and death according to His own wise purpose of grace. Yes, if we mean that the Father gave up His Son to experience the tormenting psychological agony of our guilt.

No, if we mean He acted as an arbitrary source of pain and death, as the tormentor and executioner of His Son. No, if we mean that the Father assumed a position of vicious hostility toward His Son. Christ suffered and died at *our* hands, under the burden of *our* sin, by the gracious, self-sacrificing purpose of the Father….

In holy hatred of sin and unrelenting love for the sinner, the Father handed over His Son to bear the guilt inherent in our sin and to endure the selfish, murderous rage lashing out from our sin. This fits perfectly with Paul’s definition of divine wrath. He explains that it is God giving sinners over to receive in themselves the penalty inherent in their sin (Romans 1:18-28). Christ felt “forsaken” by God, “delivered” up to suffer all that sin ultimately is, not pounced upon with hostility.

The Father was right there with His Son all along, behind the darkening veil imposed by our sin, feeling the pain of the agonizing separation.

I can love a God like that. I am so glad He is that kind of God. You can love Him too. I know you can, because your heart, like mine, yearns to love and be loved with such passionate grace.

(The above is from "Shades of Grace" by Ty Gibson)

Nowhere does the Bible say that God reconciled Himself to us. Here's a comment from Ty Gibson:

[/quote]

wow!! no wonder i could never see anything good in Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

since the emphasis was on Gods wrath against sinners, etc, how could anyone possibly see the love supposedly expressed in john or anywhere else. one cancels out the other!!

You know, I was just thinking about this very thing you're pointing out yesterday! This wonderful verse is usually not understood to be saying what it says. It says God so loved the world that He gave His Son, which is usually understood as meaning that Christ paid the penalty for our sins so that God could forgive us, as opposed to what it says.

God gave His Son so that we could believe in Him. This is the same idea that the whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth is the revelation of God in order that men might be set right with Him.

It's interesting how our paradigm influences so greatly how we perceive things.

Here's a text from EGW which goes along with your point here, if you haven't seen it:

Excellent response, Rosangela!

She only responded to one point. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the other points as well.

Also, in regards to the idea that God was reconciled to us, I'd be interested in knowing if you agree that there's nothing in the Bible that says this.

I'm going out on a limb here: I perceive Teresa's post to be rather more cynical than actually agreeing. She's applauding you for stating a point blindingly obvious to everyone else as if you thought everyone had missed it instead of us all taking it as an "of course" truth. With the punishment of wrath against sin taking prime place on stage, ie. first mention in the atonement, this sentence
rather says love was never abandoned nor forgotten as the be all and en all of the atonement

I hope you aren't offended by this possible cynicism, but your do appear to fail to gather all the applicable, salvific metaphors that do exist in our church beliefs, while fearing that the most obvious Gospel truth has been largely if not wholly forgotten.

They are not mutually exclusive - justice (wrath & penalty) and mercy (righteousness, agape & grace), as you regularly appear to portray them in your disagreement with penal substitution. How Biblically stable is your view of God's law and justice as purely agape confirmed, for divine justice never was arbitrary or whatever else you have as objection to Christ suffering our penalty - you do agree he bore the curse of tte law for us?...I can never seem to get my head round your full alternative to the SDA position...

That was rather concise, yes: spiritual rebirth, renewal of the mind, experience of righteousness is typically timed by church teaching to be part of sanctification, leaving justification to be purely legal, forensic - a judicial (legally recognised) declaration of righteousness, but no inner renewal, since that is for sanctification...Such a teaching is not Adventist but a Sunday church belief basis, totally frustrating obedience of the Gospel in practical Godliness: correct teaching is renewal of mind, rebirth is "the experience of justification", the Palmdale Conference consensus statement on RBF between The GC and Ford's Australasian Division, in 1976 (published in the Review). Such an "experience" is the rebirth of RBF! - Ford swore blind he never actually agreed to that truth on justification - holding to his defeated line: "The Gospel is justification only!" - "the experience of justification" is the graceous powerbase of obedience.

Last week the lesson was within a hair's breadth of reiterating the truth of Palmdale. The Adventist church has been grossly silent on that truth since Kenneth Wood retired in'83...pushing neo-Fordian k]legal justification and rebirth in sanctification - which isn't Biblical, whatever Ford says.

NO IT DOESN'T...As I just clarified for Tom, justification is "participation" in Christ's death, resurrection and life of righteousness, as quite possibly expressed toward the end of this daily page of the lesson. Pardon of sin is only half the story of justification by faith: the other half is renewal of the mind. Only thereby can sanctification actually happen each day - in which we work spiritually with God, so cannot, may not, assist in performing renewal of our own mind...which is verily the experience of justification.

On the "God reconciled with us" debate: surely, Daryl, that was a typo which didn't jump out as not sounding right because it doesn't sound wrong at a glance? - and is right in a sense...as Rosangela has suggested, despite no mention in Scripture - it's not of salvific urgency!

On the sacrifice of atonement, the lesson quietly & correctly identifies wrath as the punishment & suffering of Christ: "expiation" means wrath wasn't suffered because God isn't wrath against sin - the word defines God by what sort of sacrifice of atonement is required to atone for us, reconcile us to God, as Christ died for our sins. Propitiation, perhaps generally the least used word in the English language, is critical in understanding the atonement by Christ: it involves suffering the wrath of God against sin. Different Bible translations and theologians pick whichever of these two words expresses their view of "wrath or no wrath, that is the question".

While the Quarterly wasn't exactly clear on this difference between these words - googling them together brings several studies of the meanings, the truth of wrath was firmly stated and there was no space to sort out expiation & propitiation properly.

The pervasive love of God was quite clearly & rightly the conclusion of the week!

no, my brother, it certainly was not meant cynical, but honest. when people tried to tell me God was love, after the way they behaved, in addition to the emphasis on Gods wrath on sinners, etc, i did not have a good picture of God. i did not want to go to heaven. what on earth for?! God was just waiting to get me every time i did something wrong.

lest you think i am in a minority here, let me disabuse you of that!!

i run into many who see only a punishing, vindictive God-in the sda church. some who seem willing to kill to keep this picture of "god".

now, i have only recently heard the words "penal substitution" and am mostly watching, reading, learning, whats going on. my basic understanding now is that i was going to die, but Jesus came and lived and died so that i dont have to.

but that wrath-of-God thing was the main focus of many, and what i picked up and i cant say i particularly understood the atonement, except for bits and pieces. i understand it much better due to my personal studies, now.

as for finding the love of God in the church? never in life would have happened!! i see a lot of counterfeits, and believe me, people with my background spot it a mile away!! all superficiality and nothing underneath!

but God was/is good. it took Him decades to get through to me, but He did, through this person, that person, inspiring me to ask Him to cleanse me of all tradition i had picked up from the church-sda-and my parents, reading my bible over and over and over and over again until i had it pretty well down, besides i dont know how much else.

but if you have always known a God of love, caring and compassion in your understanding i am very happy for you, and others like you.

you understood what i said quite well, my brother!!

I'm glad to see teresaq responded. I read through her posts, and didn't see anything sarcastic in them. She seems to be a real straight shooter. (I'm assuming she's a she; not sure). At any rate, I'm glad to see my suspicions were correct.

You say "the SDA position," which seems like a strange thing to write. I'm only quoted from SDAs (with one exception, Greg Boyd) to establish the position I've been sharing! Waggoner, in particular, who has "heavenly credentials" presented a position which is identical, as far as I can tell, to what I've been presenting. Fifield and Gibson are also SDAs.

I really can't understand why you refer to authority on these points. If ever the expression "he who lives in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones" applied, it is to you, given your views regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit, viz a viz the Trinity. I never have referred to authority in our conversations regarding your ideas on these points.

The only authority is truth. Truth is not established by SDAs in official positions. What was, and has been, the official SDA position regarding 1888? Or the Trinity? It seems disingenuous of you to bring this up, given how you view their positions in regards to these topics. It's OK for you to have an "unofficial" position in regards to the Trinity, or 1888, but it's not OK for me to have an "unofficial" position in regards to the atonement?

Regarding getting your head around my position, it's very simple. I can make a presentation from either Scripture, or the SOP. I'll use the SOP here, but a very similar argument can be made from Scripture:



The problem of man was being deceived by Satan in regards to God's character. This deception led man to distrust God, which in turn led him to sin, which led to guilt, and further misunderstanding of God's character, and further distrust of God, and further sin, etc. Here we have a vicious cycle of the worst sort. How should this be counteracted?

Since the root of the problem was believing lies regarding God's character, it follows that the root solution is believing the truth. So Christ came to reveal the truth. What's the truth? The truth is that God is non-violent, completely, and that He would rather permit His creatures to do whatever they wished than to save Himself.

The SOP says that the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission on earth was the "revelation of God" in order to "set men right." This isn't difficult to understand, once we correctly identify the problem.

Regarding 105373, I agree.

Regarding "propitiation," this again gets to what one sees the problem as being. Is the problem God's wrath? Or is the problem man's rebellion? (or perhaps both).

I don't see God's wrath as a problem that needed to be solved. As Fifield puts it:



Waggoner comments:

I am perhaps much blessed by God not to have faced superficial love from fellow Christians at parish level which put me off God himself, or that sort of thing.

You aren't hinting at legalists, are you? Determined to follow the rules and considering laxity on that regime treason to the cause. My past is traumatic, but flooded with grace: raised by my father, a former South African advocate (lawyer) and theology graduate (SDA's Helderberg College), in the midst of a wide family of relatives, while blessed with full health, etc. God clarified RBF for me before I got to analyse the main Adventist "alternatives", chiefly the "historic 'legalists'": they weren't bad, I found, as they are countering liberal theology which is the real danger.

"God's wrath against sinners" isn't Gospel, let alone Biblical, so someone spread bad news: God's wrath is against sin, since his love is for sinners, both expressed by God in Christ in his life and death - expressed also in last week's lesson. Yes the cross of Christ manifested both mercy and justice, grace and wrath, wrath against sin.

As for propitiation, Tom: it is a misrepresentation indeed of God's wrath to portray him as against sinners, but it is Biblical truth that he is wrath against sin, making the sacrifice of the atonement a propitiation nonetheless.

If he wants to refute the penal substitution theory, he should address what it says, not what it does not say.
John Stott, 22 years ago, already said that seeing the atonement as “a sacrifice to appease an angry God, or that the cross was a legal transaction in which an innocent victim was made to pay the penalty for the crimes of others” as being “neither the Christianity of the Bible in general nor of Paul in particular” and further that “it is doubtful if anybody has ever believed such a crude construction” (The Cross of Christ, p. 172) Even John Calvin himself says that "our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us”. (Institutes II 16:4).

As I have said innumerable times, God’s wrath is not against the sinner, but against sin. Sin is a crime, an offense against the constitution of God’s kingdom (His law). Offenses against the constitution of a kingdom affect the whole kingdom; they threaten the good order and happiness of the whole jurisdiction of the King. Therefore, sin cannot just be ignored - it must be judged. However, when it is judged by God, it must obviously be condemned. The problem is that the condemnation of sin causes in the sinner such a weight of guilt that it crushes him. That's why it is said that the penalty of the law is death. Sin must be judged and the law upholded, however this would lead the sinner to death. Thus, God judged sin in Christ, so that the sinner need not die.

"Christ has made a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of Justice. What a price for heaven to pay to ransom the transgressor of the law of Jehovah. Yet that holy law could not be maintained with any smaller price. ...
"The transgression of God's law in a single instance, in the smallest particular, is sin. And the non-execution of the penalty of that sin would be a crime in the divine administration. God is a judge, the avenger of justice, which is the habitation and foundation of His throne. He cannot dispense with His law, He cannot do away with its smallest item in order to meet and pardon sin. The rectitude and justice and moral excellence of the law must be maintained and vindicated before the heavenly universe and the worlds unfallen....
”The penalty must be exacted. The Lord does not save sinners by abolishing His law, the foundation of His government in heaven and in earth. The punishment has been endured by the sinner's substitute.
"Not that God is cruel and merciless, and Christ so merciful that He died on Calvary's cross to abolish a law so arbitrary that it needed to be extinguished, crucified between two thieves. The throne of God must not bear one stain of crime, one taint of sin. In the councils of heaven, before the world was created, the Father and the Son covenanted together that if man proved disloyal to God, Christ, one with the Father, would take the place of the transgressor, and suffer the penalty of justice that must fall upon him." {21MR 194, 195}

The truth on atonement may be disputed in Christiandom among several options, but the explanation I'm familiar with and hold to be the best is that held by the church generally, as expressed in this Quarter's lesson, thus my reference to "the SDA position" is to a general agreement, not an authoritarian line. I consider Adventist beliefs generally to be truth, with those few exceptions like Christ's humanity etc. - atonement not included.

So maybe as many disagreeing with the church's position on atonement as differ on eg. the humanity of Christ? - quoting church leaders of the past and the present: those quotes only cover some of the whole story, and don't deal with the rest of the picture properly, so I challenge that view on "the rest"...

Differences over controverted doctrine for me is about establishing Adventist clarity of message, as the remnant message movement, rather than simply having a collection of truths. Thus, my study focusses on our church pioneers, including EGW of course, following a Bible study - like on propitiation, which turns on the word wrath, not the word itself. Together this literary heritage teaches the position on the atonement I've read from many authors over the years, so that propitiation, as a case in point, holds sway, Bible first, SOP next, others, too.

Regarding the "historic Adventist" legalism, I'm not sure it's not worse than the liberal theology. It's really, really difficult to convince the legalist of his need for grace. Otoh, the liberal, oftentimes, is convinced of his need of it, and unless he actually refuses to overcome some specific sin (i.e., is resisting the Holy Spirit in some specific way) the fact that he thinks victory of sin is not theoretically possible may not be fatal.



There's no problem with the idea that God is angry at sin. Both Gibson and Fifield speak to this at length, which I've quoted. Regarding the Waggoner quote, if one simply exchanges "sin" for "sinner," his logic doesn't change any.

Rosangela, if there's something specific that I quoted from Ty Gibson that you disagreed with, you could quote that, and we could discuss it. Did you agree with his two-party concept as opposed to three-party?



I agree with this. So do the other parties I've quoted (most specifically Ty Gibson, since we're discussing his quote here).



Since sin causes such a weight of guilt that it crushes the sinner, what's needed is to separate him from the sin that leads to his death. This is exactly what Waggoner said in the quote I cited for Colin.

Regarding what happened, Ty writes:



Do you agree with this? This brings up the point of God's "holy hatred of sin," and that God was "not pounced upon with hostility," are were points you have been making.



This deals with the relationship between sin and death.



This brings up the need to be separated from sin, although not as explicitly here as in the Waggoner quote, although he deals with this in detail in other places. Basically the logic Ty is using is that sin leads to death (for the reason you pointed out, that's its guilt crushes us) so it is necessary for to be freed from sin, and the only way this can happen is for us to behold the truth regarding sin, ourselves, and God. I can quote other sections of what he has written which deal with this.

i would say, my brother, one extreme is just as deadly as the other. its that narrow path we need to be on and the one that would counter both errors.

again, i am glad you had a different experience!

On which Adventist path do we find all attributes of Jesus taught? The liberal left, the mainstream, or the conservative? The straight and narrow is the only way to go, but Herb Douglass among others has helped me to realise that the Bible and SOP teachings are best preserved by the conservatives in our midst, testing each and every proponent all the while.

The systematic theology chapter on Herb Douglass in "Cross- currents of Adventist Christology" on the At Issue link from www.sdanet.org explains that conservative narrow path, here: http://sdanet.org/atissue/books/webster/ccac05-IIa.htm Yes, the humanity of Christ part of the Gospel directly affects the Gospel goal, as the neighbouring chapters on Douglass show. Oh, that may not be of interest to you...

I was going to say just that. Since you already did, I'll just say, "Ditto."

On the cross, we see God's love for the sinner and His hatred for sin, all at once.

The drunkard may eventually see his need of salvation, but the proud feels no need.

I haven't read that. Maybe get to it one of these days.

But from what I have read, I like A. Leroy Moore's stance on the conservative/liberal divide.

On the cross, do we see Christ's love for the sinner and His hatred for sin all at once?

I still see problems with viewing the atonement in legal terms.
For example, if atoning means expiation, or paying our legal debt, and our legal debt is death, then wouldnt Christ have needed to stay dead in order to pay our debt? Since He didnt stay dead whose life has paid for our sins?

Rosangela, or anyone who disagrees with what Tom has been presenting here, what is Jesus doing now in heaven? In what way is he a mediator for us? Is He in heaven pleading with the Father to forgive us? The problem is God in this position. And we are just glad we have Jesus there to protect us from that wrath right?

I believe so. I don't think there's any difference.

lol, no, his book may be very good, but it is basically his opinion. as for preserving, yes, it would seem the conservatives would do that.

but Jesus was seen as a liberal by the conservatives, you know healing on the sabbath, his disciples eating the corn, or "reaping", etc. then he was seen as a conservative by the liberals. yet He was walking the straight and narrow. our best example. que no?

but it seems those who go deeper while not throwing away the core are the best.....

since you mentioned the man.........he is one person i have read parts of since i appreciate what i have seen of him on sdanet.

so to all:
he brings up the point, that im not going to say exactly right, but that the atonement is not based on the roman justice system, but the hebraic system.

so which system is the penal .... theory based on? i forgot what it is called. sorry. something to consider, anyway.

I agree! What did Christ do on the cross so that we can see His hatred of sin?

That He, the Author of life, would lay it down in order to eradicate sin. That's pretty extreme, I think.

Yes: no, that's as extreme as it gets! Purposes, purposes: that "the Author of life" (that's EGW's phrase, isn't it) lay down his eternal life is our source of eternal life,...the very point of where our eternally redemptive eternal life comes from that she wrote about in Signs of the Times, which was excerpted in DA 530.

The demonstration of hatred of sin was both the death of God's Son, and the separate suffering of actual & effectively eternal separation (he couldn't see the resurrection morning when he died) from his Father, for our sake: love was willing to suffer.

Actually, no: it's not his book - which you may have spotted by now, it's a doctoral thesis by Pastor Eric Webster of South Africa (now retired a while), on Ellen White, Ellet Waggoner, Edward Heppenstall and Herbert Douglass, showing Ted (that's Edward to everyone, I hope!) was the odd man out on Christology, the others all taking, NOT towing, the same line on Christ's humanity and salvation for us.

BTW, it was Moore, not Douglass, you'd spotted some of on sdanet, eh: Moore contributes, Herb doesn't; I don't anymore.

Those political wings were so out of kilter I don't know whether it's more funny or sad!

I personally try to avoid political terminology, since it can leave the impression (rightly perhaps) that all groups are true Adventism, which isn't necessarily true, at all. What is the teaching of Bible and SOP, and the church's position early on and later on?

Absolutely, HMS Richards described Adventism in a radio interview as "Jesus only", though, of course, who one takes him to be and what one does with him makes all the difference, as http://qod.andrews.edu shows - that's the Andrews University website, it it's at all in doubt.

I agree. The eradication of sin is something which takes place in the individual believer, isn't it?

The Hebraic system of justice was based on restoration, not retribution. http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0499/049910.htm is something to look at.

I have an even better link on the subject I can supply later.

i was refering to whoever wrote whatever that you were recommending.



sorry for the confusion, i was refering to moore, since arnold had brought him up, but i didnt make that clear. i dont remember if i had seen anything by you.....



yes, i can say the same thing you and ten others are saying and we each one mean something completely different!!!!

i truly believe the latter rain has been falling!!

Here's the other link: http://sharktacos.com/God/cross1.html

Look at the part that speaks of justice and mercy.

Nearly as bad as the variety of meanings entertained among supporters, institutional and individual, of the trinity God! On the humanity of Jesus there is clarity of original teachings - confirmed by the information in that link, and thus of priorities for our belief - it is known what the church started with, so our assessment of what matters for our message and existence shows itself for our various eschatological, Gospel outlooks.

We seem to be having an invasion of smileys.

But does all sinful behavior result in sinners suffering? For example, will two non-believers, who are unmarried in the eyes of God, naturally feel shame and guilt?

Does ignorance cancel out the results of sinning? Or, does sin pay its wages irrespective of ignorance? If not, how can we say sinners reap what they sow?

If people can break one of the commandments without feeling any shame or sorrow, why couldn't they break all ten without feeling any ill effects? Are the consequences of sinning natural or not? Are they arbitrary?

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 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}
"They would none of my counsel, they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil." Proverbs 1:30-33. {OHC 26.5}

"Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Galatians 6:6, 7). Wonderful truth! This is a two-edged sword which cuts both ways. This life and death question is before the whole human race. The choice we make in this life will be our choice through all eternity. We shall receive either eternal life or eternal death. There is no middle ground, no second probation. {RC 287.5}

i guess it all depends on how we read and understand these verses.

the second coming:
The very ones that once admired them most will pronounce the most dreadful curses upon them. The very hands that once crowned them with laurels will be raised for their destruction. The swords which were to slay God's people are now employed to destroy their enemies. Everywhere there is strife and bloodshed. {GC 655.4}

The work of destruction begins among those who have professed to be the spiritual guardians of the people. The false watchmen are the first to fall. There are none to pity or to spare. Men, women, maidens, and little children perish together. {GC 656.2}

In the mad strife of their own fierce passions, and by the awful outpouring of God's unmingled wrath, fall the wicked inhabitants of the earth--priests, rulers, and people, rich and poor, high and low. "And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried." Jeremiah 25:33. {GC 656.3}


the third coming with the new jerusalem:
The wicked are filled with the same hatred of God that inspires Satan; but they see that their case is hopeless, that they cannot prevail against Jehovah. Their rage is kindled against Satan and those who have been his agents in deception. With the fury of demons they turn upon them, and there follows a scene of universal strife. {4SP 487.1}

Excellent! So you do agree that it's possible to ignorant of breaking one of the last six commandments! This is exactly one of the examples I gave of this, btw.

Those are excellent quotes provided by Teresa. She's dealing with an important theme that I haven't discussed much, which is another aspect of what happens when God withdraws His protective powers, a type of self-destruction that the wicked reak on each other.

Teresaq, I'm not sure how the quotes you posted addressed my questions. Can you please explain. Thank you.

Don't get too excited, Tom. You haven't made a convert yet. I only asked questions to help me understand Teresaq's point of view. I'm sorry to disappoint.

Well if they're not really ignorant, your questions don't make any sense, right? At least it would be a good example of a FOTAP question! These are the types of questions you ask me routinely. For me to answer the question "yes" or "no" would be admitting the false assumed premise. Here the difference is the false assumed premise is against what you yourself believe!

re your questions in #105542. most all of us are going to die the first death no matter how good or how bad we are.

everything we do leads to life, eternal life or it leads to death, the second death. otherwise this verse has little meaning.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

the answers to your questions depends on whether we believe God or not. if i sow a corn seed God is not going to come along and make it a money tree.

if i sow a weed seed He isnt going to come along and make it grow wheat.

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life.

i havent ever been able to read anyones mind yet, nor have i known anyone who could, so we have no idea what they are feeling or not, nor whether they are reaping or not. so how could anyone possibly answer such questions as this?

Teresaq, I believe people always suffer in one way or another when they sin. It doesn't matter if they have no idea they are sinning. Sin always pays its wages, which involves, when talking about life before death, suffering of some sort including the first death. In some cases it may only involve a sense of emptiness, a God-sized hole in their heart they cannot fill to satisfaction. Ignorantly living in sin (shacking up) and ignorantly breaking the Sabbath are examples. What do you think?

i have to be honest and say i dont think about it much at all.

I agree!

Teresaq, that's fine. Thank you just the same for your input. I appreciate it.

Tom, to what are you agreeing? Please be specific and thorough. Thank you.

I agree with what you said, that ignorantly living in sin and ignorantly breaking the Sabbath are examples of how people suffer in one way or another when they sin, of the God-sized hole and sense of emptiness which you spoke of, which can't be satisfied apart from Him.

Thank you. But, again, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying people can sin in a way that violates the last half of the law and not be able to put two and two together, that is, no one can steal or lie or cheat and not be able to identify it as the source of their unrest. People know naturally, instinctively it is morally wrong to do things that violate the last six commandments, that doing such things makes them feel anxious and uncomfortable. They may not be able to pin point such things as a violation of the law but they know doing such things makes them feel edgy, and when they don't do them feel a lot better about themselves. People are like this because it's how God wired them from conception and birth. Nobody has to tell them doing such things will make them feel bad. They just know it naturally. Of course, people can, over a period of time, harden their hearts and learn to do such things without feeling bad.

So you're saying that because a person sin's, that causes them to feel uneasy, even though they may not know the reason why? If so, I agree with that. In the case of the people living together, you spoke of their "ignorantly living in sin." I agree with this too.

"People know naturally, instinctively it is morally wrong to do things that violate the last six commandments." I agree with this too. Actually I agree with everything you wrote in this post. I would have also agreed if you had written: ""People know naturally, instinctively it is morally wrong to do things that violate the last ten commandments."

Tom, forgive me, but when you say you agree with me, I initially, instinctively suspect something is horribly wrong. I know that doesn't sound very nice, but I don't mean it to sound mean. For example, are you 100% certain you believe no one can violate one of the last six commandments without naturally, instinctively feeling rotten to a lesser or greater degree, without realizing it is morally wrong to indulge those types of thoughts, words, and deeds? Or, do you think it is possible for people to violate one or more of the last six commandments and feel no sorrow or shame? Of course, I'm talking about normal people, healthy people who have not hardened their hearts beyond feeling sorry or shameful when they sin.

Also, yes, I believe people feel a sense of loss and emptiness when they ignorantly violate the first four commandments. However, the difference is that they cannot identify the source of their loss and emptiness without learning about it from the Bible or from someone who believes in the Bible. They are not born with an instinctive ability to discern the source and cause of their feelings of loss and emptiness.

I didn't take it as mean. I took it as humorous, which I thought it was, and I think is how you intended it.



In general principles, I agree with this regarding all 10 Commandments. That is, I wouldn't necessarily word it the way you did, but I agree with the idea your stating.



I believe that sin is bad, and makes people feel bad, even though they may not know why. The human brain is very complicated, so exactly how this might be manifest is impossible for mere mortals to specify exactly, but the part above where you talked about people feeling rotten to a lesser or greater degree isn't bad.



I would agree with this in regards to the last six as well. As Paul stated, he would not have known "thou shalt not covet," but by the Bible.



I agree with this, in regards to all 10, like Paul states.