TE: But in the case of killing, it does not appear that you believe that God is bound by the law. At least I'm not seeing how. That's what I'm trying to get at.

MM: Indeed, law and justice demand that God punish sinners according to their sinfulness, and then destroy them. In killing sinners, therefore, God is obeying the law. In fact, God must justify pardoning sinners instead of killing them.

The idea that sin kills sinners doesn't make sense in light of the fact law and justice demand punishment and death. If it happens naturally it would be senseless to require it. God would not have to justify pardoning sinners if all it takes to prevent death is to give them access to the tree of life.

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.

EW 51
I was pointed to Adam and Eve in Eden. They partook of the forbidden tree and were driven from the garden, and then the flaming sword was placed around the tree of life, lest they should partake of its fruit and be immortal sinners. The tree of life was to perpetuate immortality. I heard an angel ask, "Who of the family of Adam have passed the flaming sword and have partaken of the tree of life?" I heard another angel answer, "Not one of Adam's family 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 that will last forever, from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased. {EW 51.2}

The law says, "Thou shalt not kill." It does not say "Thou shalt kill." On the one hand, you claim that God is bound by the law, but when I ask you to give an example of how this is the case for a specific circumstance, namely the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" you refuse to do so, and instead offer arguments as to why the *reverse* of what the command says is what God is bound to do!



When I asked you if you meant by "sin kills sinners" that "sin results in death," you appeared to me to be saying "yes," since you asked the question "What's the difference?" Since you're trying to represent my idea here, may I ask you to use my words? (which are actually Ellen White's words, which I find to be clearer than yours). So to restate the above, you are claiming "The idea that sin results in death doesn't make sense in light of the fact law and justice demand punishment and death."

It makes perfect sense if we simply understand that the death which sin results in *is* the punishment and death which the law and justice demand.

From the Spirit of Prophecy:





This is stating the reverse of your idea, it seems to me, about as clearly as it can be stated.



That's not at all true. It is by no means the case that only arbitrarily imposed things can be required.

The point is that the result of sin cannot be avoided. If God were to make some exception, that would perpetuate sin. It would violate the principles of love, truth and freedom.



That's not all that's necessary to prevent death. This is missing the whole point. What's necessary is not simply to prevent death but to give life. Jesus Christ is that life. What man needs is Christ.

In order to justify pardoning sinners, God must justify the sinner, which is to say, give Him life, and separate him from sin.

But aren't you reclassifying God's killing as something else when you say that at the final day God will stop sustaining the sinner's life?

I already spoke to that. I said it would be odd to characterize this act as "killing" someone. Especially if the person had no desire to live, it being torture for the person to stay alive.

The issue for me involves violence. If we say God puts certain people to sleep, there's no moral or ethical problem I see with God's doing that, which is to say, there's nothing out of harmony with His character to act in such a way. As A. T. Jones put it, it is not in harmony with God's character to needless prolong the suffering of an individual.

However, for God to do something violent to kill someone is completely out of harmony with His character. It would also mean that violence is a fundamental or integral part of God's government.

The idea that God must impose a violent penalty as retribution to pay for one's sin debt is the culprit. It leads to ideas such as God will burn people alive, and use special technology to keep the alive so they don't die right away, but instead keep alive for many days, so the shrieking and shouting in agony can continue. The holy grail of torture would have been found.





Supposedly God is acting identically to those prompted by Satan, but that's Ok, because it's God doing the torture and putting people to death, it's God who regulates the fire, so the agony can be prolonged (that's the theory I was hearing when this subject was discussed here in the past.)

Regarding classifying this behavior as "torture," it is defined be international law as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, ..."

The behavior supposedly to be committed by God is so inhumane that we have laws against it, and it's prohibited by international law as well.

I remember one time a couple of years ago I had a conversation with a Catholic, where I described his belief as God's torturing those who reject Him for all eternity, and he objected. First I produced the definition for "torture," but he was still unconvinced. Then I found a Catholic saint who actually used the word "torture," and then he was convinced, yes, God does torture the wicked for all eternity (it was OK to say that because a Catholic saint had said so), but this was OK, because it was God doing it.

Is it OK for God to do anything He wants? Is that what the Great Controversy is about? God's demonstrating that His kingdom will violently overcome the enemy, and violently torture and put to death all who oppose Him?

If there is a sin debt that must be paid by the guilty individual at the end because "justice demands it" and "God's wrath must be appeased," could God just put the guilty ones in a prison cell? Or solitary confinement? Why must they be burnt alive, something so inhumane, none of us would consider doing this to our worst enemy?

It seems to me there is something very wrong in an interpretation of God's being bound by law which insists that because of being bound to it, God must exact pain and suffering from His Son in order to pay off the debt the law demands, and that after doing that God still (even though the debt has already been paid) burn alive those who didn't want the pardon for up to many days.

Tom, if sin results in death, why don't sinners die the instant they sin?

Why does Inspiration say, If sinners had free access to the tree of life they would eat and live forever?

"... the death which sin results in *is* the punishment and death which the law and justice demand." Of whom does law and justice demand this death? If it happens naturally, what sense does it make to demand it? BTW, does this apply to the first or second death?

God has taken measures to prevent this from happening.



Death is "the inevitable result of sin." Because this death, before the cross, would have been misunderstood, God did not leave Satan and his host to reap the full result of their sin.



The tree of life had special properties to prolong the life of human beings, which God did not want to have happen, so as not to prolong their suffering.



It applies primarily to the second death. I just got a phone call. More later.

TE: God has taken measures to prevent this from happening.

MM: Sinners could live forever if God gave them free access to the tree of life. By denying them this access they die, which is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. You say God does something to prevent them from dying, whereas the Bible says He does something that causes them to die.

---

TE: Death is "the inevitable result of sin." Because this death, before the cross, would have been misunderstood, God did not leave Satan and his host to reap the full result of their sin.

MM: The reason death is inevitable is due to the fat God is obligated by law to execute sinners. Law and justice require God to punish and destroy sinners.

---

TE: The tree of life had special properties to prolong the life of human beings, which God did not want to have happen, so as not to prolong their suffering.

MM: Not so. She didn't say, The tree of life was to "prolong" life. She plainly says, "The tree of life was to perpetuate immortality." These two views are worlds apart.

EW 51
I was pointed to Adam and Eve in Eden. They partook of the forbidden tree and were driven from the garden, and then the flaming sword was placed around the tree of life, lest they should partake of its fruit and be immortal sinners. The tree of life was to perpetuate immortality. I heard an angel ask, "Who of the family of Adam have passed the flaming sword and have partaken of the tree of life?" I heard another angel answer, "Not one of Adam's family 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 that will last forever, from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased. {EW 51.2}

---

MM: "... the death which sin results in *is* the punishment and death which the law and justice demand." Of whom does law and justice demand this death? If it happens naturally, what sense does it make to demand it? BTW, does this apply to the first or second death?

TE: It applies primarily to the second death. I just got a phone call. More later.

MM: Okay.

Is this like the following:



I don't think it's prudent to make a whole theory out of the use of "forever."



The Bible says "The soul that sinneth shall die." "The wages of sin is death." "The sting of death is sin." The Spirit of Prophecy has scores of statements declaring that death is the result of sin, and that Satan is its author.



If the reason for death is not because of sin, as your are arguing, but God, then we are led to the conclusion that we must accept Christ as our Savior to save us from what God will do to us if we don't.



To perpetuate immortality means exactly to prolong life. Why do you think there's a difference?



Here is some more of a quote I presented before (not sure if in this thread)



This explains what it means to say that the law and justice demand that sin be punished.

Tom,

The question is the following: Did Jesus suffer a torture on the cross? Will the wicked suffer a torture in the lake of fire? Obviously this torture is caused by the consciousness of sin in view of God’s hatred of it. So in this sense it’s a punishment which results of sin. But – an this is an important point – it can’t be denied that this is an imposed punishment, because God Himself will raise the wicked to suffer this punishment. There would be absolutely no need to do that, except the need for the wicked to suffer for their sins. It seems to me there is something very wrong in saying that this is “putting someone to sleep” peacefully. This is not an euthanasia – a “good death” – it’s a fearful, horrible, cruel death. So what I see here is that there is a penalty – a mental torture which is the result of sin – and that God will specifically raise the wicked to pay this penalty. This is what I sincerely see when I examine the subject. Am I wrong?

By the way, on reading PK this morning, I ran upon this quote:

"We were all debtors to divine justice, but we had nothing with which to pay the debt. Then the Son of God, who pitied us, paid the price of our redemption." p. 652.