That's too bad. I think Ty does an excellent job explaining the fundamental principles of sin/pardon/the judgment, etc. Ty doesn't use the SOP in the book I referenced, as its audience includes non-SDA's, but his book has a lot of Scripture. He uses it similar to Ellen White, in the context of developing well reasoned arguments based on principles.



No, this isn't right. We owe all to Christ.

Waggoner explained this, in addition to Ellen White:



From the SOP:



Our position as SDA's has never been that Christ has only borne the iniquity of believers.

The DA quote supports her idea in MB 116:



This is an awful thought. Nobody can sin with impunity.



This is totally wrong. I don't know how you could think such a thing. No one can sin with no ill effect. How could you even think this is possible?

What is the principle upon which sin is based? It's selfishness. How can one act selfishly without any ill effect?







This really shouldn't be something one should need to prove with quotes. By our own life's experience, we know that sin and selfishness have ill effects -- always! I don't know how you could assert such a thing that one can sin with no effect.



Not sure of your point here. Sinning with no ill effect is bliss?



What you called the panoramic view, or something like that. Last chapter of "The Great Controversy." Also the DA chapter on the cleansing of the chapter, the first time.



What point is it that you are in doubt regarding?



I don't understand your thinking here. DA 764 brings out that if God permitted Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would perished, but it would not have been apparent that this was the inevitable result of sin. Obviously, from this, we can conclude two things:

1.God is preventing Satan and his followers from perishing by not having them reap the full results of sin.
2.Reaping the full results of sin is not something God does to the wicked, but is a result of their own choice (which point DA 764 also makes explicitly, several times).

Tom,

How well do you know Ty and how long have you known him? Just curious.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't know Ty personally well at all. I've met him once or twice, and had some passing words, and that's it. I've known of him since about 1992 I think.

His books have made a big impression upon me, especially "See With New Eyes" and "Shades of Grace." There are a couple of things I see differently than he does, but his overall concept of what the Plan of Salvation is about resonates with me.

Ty has come a long way. My first impressions of him were somewhat mixed. His theology seems to have become more in tune with the Bible as the years have gone by. He has always been filled with genuine zeal in the Lord's work. This is good. In the beginning of his ministry, the zeal was sometimes misplaced. He began as an independent ministry in tune with Hope International, and some other tithe-accepting, Adventist-church-is-apostatizing type of peripheral Adventists. He later drew the ire of some of the other self-supporting ministries by making a clean break away from that, and choosing not to accept tithe anymore, recognizing the validity of the church organization.

I attended some of the Hope International camp meetings in north-eastern Washington in the late 80's - early 90's. Ty and James were still quite young, fresh converts to Adventism from a very worldly life (as you may hear them tell from time to time). The camp meetings were held on the same grounds where they were just beginning to make a publishing shop for printing pamphlets to send abroad. The camp meetings were held in the out-of-doors, as there was not room indoors for the group of people gathered. It was not large...maybe 60-120 people? Memory fades after 20 years, but it was a small group, and all seemed to be eager to study the Bible. It was probably as near to an "old-fashioned" camp meeting as one might get, and the seating was about the same as Ellen White's day. But the messages preached had an air of sensationalism at that time, sometimes implying a difference to the teachings of the church.

James and Ty have settled down much since then. I'm not sure, but I think they may have still been single back then. Anyhow, I do appreciate all of what Ty and James have tried to do in their work for the Lord. Nevertheless, I do not hold their interpretations of scripture to be infallible. It is our duty to study for ourselves, and to know the truth for ourselves. For this, we have been given the Bible and Ellen White, by God. All others must be compared with these inspired sources.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Where Ty disagrees with the SOP is where I disagree with Ty. I agree with you, though, that he does an excellent job of explaining his beliefs. However, his ideas come short of saying what actually causes resurrected sinners to die. I’ve asked him to complete his thought, but it’s been about 6 months now with no follow up. Maybe I’ll hear back from him this winter?


Here’s what Ellen wrote about it (I’ve inserted numbers):

Whether they know it or not, 1) all are weary and heavy-laden. 2) All are weighed down with burdens that only Christ can remove. 3) The heaviest burden that we bear is the burden of sin. If we were left to bear this burden, it would crush us. But the Sinless One has taken our place. "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53:6. He has borne the burden of our guilt. 4) He will take the load from our weary shoulders. 5) He will give us rest. 6) The burden of care and sorrow also He will bear. 7) He invites us to cast all our care upon Him; for He carries us upon His heart. {DA 328.5}

Here are the numbered sentences with my comments. Do you agree with them?

1. “All are weary and heavy-laden.” Not some, but all.
2. “All are weighed down with burdens that only Christ can remove.” We must give Jesus permission to remove them.
3. “The heaviest burden that we bear is the burden of sin.” All bear the burden of sin.
4. “He will take the load from our weary shoulders.” He will (future tense) not has (past tense) bear our burden of sin when we give Him permission.
5. “He will give us rest.” He will (future tense) not has (past tense) give us rest when we ask.
6. “The burden of care and sorrow also He will bear.” He will (future tense) not has (past tense) bear our burdens when we give Him permission.
7. “He invites us to cast all our care upon Him; for He carries us upon His heart.” He will bear our burdens when we invite Him.


People do it all the time. Remember, the inevitable result of sin is suffering during judgment eventually ending in death. “They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, "according to their works," but finally ending in the second death.” {GC 544.2} No one has had this experience yet. The question is – Why not? Who or what prevents sinners from suffering and dying the moment they sin? I believe it is the absence of the radiant light of God that prevents it. I have no idea what you believe. You seem to think God hasn’t revealed it.


It appears you overlooked what I posted above. Here it is again: “Yes, some sins result in sorrow. However, most people sin with no ill effect.” The sorrow we experience in this lifetime is not the inevitable result of sin. God prevents sinners from suffering and dying the moment they sin. The real result of sin will not be known until judgment. What we experience now pales in comparison to what we will experience during judgment.


Not knowing what you don’t know is, as it were, bliss. How bad can sinners feel about not having something they know nothing about? For example, how bad do people feel who have no idea they are missing out on the blessings of Sabbath-keeping?


I assume you’re referring to the following passage:


1. “As soon as the books of record are opened, and the eye of Jesus looks upon the wicked, they are conscious of every sin which they have ever committed.”
2. “. . . all behold the enormity of their guilt.”
3. “They vainly seek to hide from the divine majesty of His countenance, outshining the glory of the sun . . .”
4. “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.”
5. “Their rage is kindled against Satan and those who have been his agents in deception, and with the fury of demons they turn upon them.”
6. “Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire.”
7. “Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." . . . In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed”.

According to the passage above, it is “the divine majesty of His countenance, outshining the glory of the sun” that will cause resurrected sinners to suffer during judgment. However, they live long enough after judgment to turn upon one another in fits of rage. God intervenes by raining down fire from above and raising up fire from below. It is then that each sinner suffers in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. Please note that fire enters the picture well after the completion of judgment. In other words, the fire described above is not the internal fire Ty describes.


Where in the Bible or the SOP is it taught that resurrected sinners will realize their characters are ugly in comparison to God’s, and that this revelation will cause them to suffer? It is certainly not taught in the definitive passage I quoted above.


I agree. However, you didn’t answer my questions. In other words, I agree God is preventing evil angels from suffering and dying as the inevitable result of sin. Does God apply the Balm of Gilead? And, what will change that all of sudden they will be able to suffer the pain and agony you describe?

GC, if you're interested in the details of Ty and James I would be willing to discuss them with you privately. I was closely connected to Ty and James between 1982-1990. I used to speak at their campmeetings.

GC, Ty's ideas are much different than they were earlier, in the time period MM is speaking of. What I like especially are his concepts in terms of the importance of God's character, and the destructiveness of sin. Those resonated with me a great deal. Many of his ideas remind me of A. Graham Maxwell's ideas, if you're familiar with him. I don't know if there is any connection there or not; perhaps MM knows.

T: What Ty wrote touches on this.

M: Except where Ty backs up his ideas with inspired passages from the Bible or the SOP I am not impressed to believe him.

T: That's too bad. I think Ty does an excellent job explaining the fundamental principles of sin/pardon/the judgment, etc. Ty doesn't use the SOP in the book I referenced, as its audience includes non-SDA's, but his book has a lot of Scripture. He uses it similar to Ellen White, in the context of developing well reasoned arguments based on principles.

MM:Where Ty disagrees with the SOP is where I disagree with Ty. [/quote]

This is rather a pointless comment. It appears to presuppose, for one thing, that you are can perfectly interpret the SOP, or, at a minimum, that you're a lot better at this than Ty is.



I'd be interesting in what he had to say about this as well.



Yes. However, the burden of sin being spoken of is not the burden of sin the wicked will experience at the judgment, but what we actually experience of sin before we become a Christian. In the case of the MB quote, this is dealing with the burden of sin, or, to use her word, "guilt," that will be borne at the judgment. The context bears this out by speaking of Calvary, and explaining why we should not lessen the guilt of sin.



This never happens. Sin always has a negative impact.

Just think of logically, MM. Sin is predicated on selfishness. Selfishness is a principle which has to have negative effects. It's impossible that this not happen. At a minimum, a person who acts selfishly will hurt himself.



You say to "remember" this, but I don't see the connection between this and your assertion that people can sin with impunity. I think the belief that it is the absence of radiant light is very superficial; it misses the deeper issues involved, trivializes them, in fact. Regarding what I believe, Christ is bearing our sin and guilt. As the SOP points out, if we had to bear this guilt, it would crush us. Christ bears it for us.

I don't understand why you say you have no idea what I believe when you've asked me, and I've told you, as well as quoting the statement that says it.



I don't overlook this; this is what I was responding to. Nobody sins without ill effect. It's impossible to sin with no ill effect. Far from happening to "most people," it happens to no people.



This is true, but in no way implies that people can sin in this lifetime with no ill effect. You could correctly say "with no apparent ill effect" or "with no obvious ill effect" or something like that, but it's impossible for one to sin with no ill effect.



Sin is misery. Sin is based on selfishness, which can only lead to suffering, misery, pain, and death. It's destructive. It's not bliss to be unaware of this.



I don't know Ty's thoughts on this; that is, if he would agree with you or not.



It says they become aware of the sins they have committed, and of the enormity of their guilt. They also realize that things could have been different. Being aware of their sins and the enormity of their guilt is a function of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the light of the glory of God. The revelation of God's character makes known their own.



What are you asking here?



They will be judged. Their sin will be seen in its true bearing.

It may be pointless to you but it is important to me to believe I’m interpreting the SOP correctly.


Quoting Ty, therefore, hasn’t been helpful since his insights do not answer my question – What will cause resurrected sinners to die?


What do think will make the difference? Why will sinners suffer differently in judgment? Why don’t we suffer that way now? I realize you believe God arbitrarily prevents it – but what does He do to prevent it?


Actually, it does happen all the time. Smokers experience a genuine sense of relief and euphoria when they indulge their sin. There is no sense of guilt. You seem to underestimate the hardening effect of the “deceitfulness of sin”. Ellen wrote:

“Like the hard-beaten path, trodden down by the feet of men and beasts, is the heart that becomes a highway for the world's traffic, its pleasures and sins. Absorbed in selfish aims and sinful indulgences, the soul is "hardened through the deceitfulness of sin." Heb. 3:13. The spiritual faculties are paralyzed. Men hear the word, but understand it not. They do not discern that it applies to themselves. They do not realize their need or their danger. They do not perceive the love of Christ, and they pass by the message of His grace as something that does not concern them. {COL 44.2}


Above you wrote, “. . . the burden of sin being spoken of is not the burden of sin the wicked will experience at the judgment”.


There is nothing trivial about being consumed in the presence of the firelight of God. Please explain how the presence of God consumes sin in the following passage: “To sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire. If you choose sin, and refuse to separate from it, the presence of God, which consumes sin, must consume you.” Sin, as you say, is not a sentient being, so how can the presence of God consume it?


The idea that the reason we do not experience crushing guilt when we sin is because Jesus bears it for us is difficult to believe, especially as it relates to evil angels. It assumes sin can be indulged with impunity as if sin is innocuous, which, by the way, is an idea you reject. At any rate, how does our guilt bypass us and end up with Jesus? Without guilt, what motivates us to repent?


How can you believe this and believe we bear no guilt?


Okay. But even Jesus could not live in a world of sin with no ill effect. Had He not returned to heaven He would have eventually died of old age. But what I’m saying is people are able to sin with no ill effect in the sense they feel no shame or guilt. You explain this by saying Jesus bears it for them. I explain it by saying they are sin-hardened.


Not all sinning results in misery or sorrow. For example, how bad do people feel who have no idea they are missing out on the blessings of Sabbath-keeping?


I didn’t ask you for Ty’s response to what I posted above. I am simply saying it doesn’t appear to me Ellen supports the idea revisiting sin in judgment will cause sinners emotional anguish ending in death. It is not clear what you believe since you haven’t explained what you think will cause sinners to die.


Here’s what Ellen wrote:

1. “As soon as the books of record are opened, and the eye of Jesus looks upon the wicked, they are conscious of every sin which they have ever committed.”
2. “. . . all behold the enormity of their guilt.”

She says nothing about God’s character. Nor does she say anything about them comprehending the contrast between their character and His. Why do you think she says nothing about it in this her definitive description of the experience of the wicked during the judgment? Why is it omitted here?


How does God prevent the evil angels from suffering and dying the moment they sin? Does He apply the Balm the Gilead (something you mentioned above)? Does Jesus divert their guilt to Himself?


What prevents them from seeing their sin in its true bearing now? What will they see then that they do not see now?

There's no need to point it out. That's what's pointless. Not your believing that you believe what the SOP says, but pointing that out.

Of course you believe you are interpreting the Scriptures and the SOP correctly. What would be the alternative?

I could say in every post I write in response to you, "I agree with you, MM, except where you disagree with Scripture or the SOP." Or I could say, "I agree with you on every point, except where you are wrong." Would that be helpful?



I think you're concerned about the wrong things, MM. The real important issues, the spiritual ones, it doesn't look like you are even considering.



You asked this on the other thread.



Actually, it never happens. People who act selfishly hurt, at a minimum, themselves. Selfishness is a principle which can only result in suffering and death. As per the SOP, wherever sin exists, it is inevitable that there will be suffering and death.



What I said is that it is not possible to sin without there being a negative impact.



Wow! That's ironic!!

Indeed, I agree that not recognizing the "sinfulness of sin," is the area of disagreement. But I'm not the one claiming that one can sin without there being a negative impact.

The SOP statement you cited in no way said or implied that one can sin without there being a negative impact.



I'm not following your thought here.



I didn't say this. I said I think this belief trivializes the deeper issues involved.



First of all, not all things which can be consumed are sentient beings, so your question doesn't really make sense.

Regarding what the MB quote means, it's similar to the DA quote, which discusses this in more detail:



Only the pure in heart could abide in Christ's presence, because His presence would make manifest to men their sin. It is this which the wicked cannot stand. In the judgment, there will be nowhere to hide. Hence the desire to be destroyed, rather than look at the face of the One who redeemed them.



???



???



Jesus bears our sin. In bearing our sin, He bears our guilt.







Also it should be noted that although Jesus Christ bears our sin and its guilt, the Holy Spirit still convicts people of sin.



I quoted this statement:



I'm not sure what you mean by "bearing no guilt." I also don't see how you reason from this statement to the idea that we bear no guilt. I think you could rightly conclude from the statement that it cannot be the case that we bear all of our guilt, but how can you conclude we don't bear any of it?



Of course not. Wherever there is sin, it's inevitable that there will be suffering and death. One who is righteous is subject to far more suffering than one who is not, and even more so for a sinless Being.



This isn't what "no ill effect" means.



How do you get that I'm explaining this? I've been arguing against the idea that one can sin with no ill effect. I haven't said anything about Jesus' bearing our sin having to do with this.





(More later)