Why humanity need redemption?

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/01/06 02:49 AM

Humanity died because they inherit Adam’s dead body as they were all born in his image and his likeness. Adam died because he ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, in spite God had warned him. In this fruit God had created death, by eating it, Adam and Eve died.

God did not created death; Satan did. Death is the inevitable result of sin.

Free will is very important to God, so God allowed Satan the opportunity to tempt Adam and Eve. This Satan did by misrepresenting God's character. Believing Satan's lies is what led to Adam and Eve's death.

Death exist even before there is a legal law, and without the existence of the legal Law, sin is not taken into account, so death as the wages of sin could not be applied to humanity.

The death that results from sin has nothing to do with legal law. The law makes evident what was always the case. It doesn't add anything new in terms of either creating righteousness or death where it did not exist. What the law does do is make evident what righteousness is, the purpose of which is to lead us to Christ.

Our 1st death is the result of Adam’s eating the fruit of “death.”
Our 2nd death is the wage of our sin that transgress the law of God, after the Law came into effect at Sinai.

It's true that our first death comes as a result of Adam's sin, but our second death has absolutely nothing to do with the law being proclaimed at Sinai.

Christ had saved humanity from the 1st death by giving his own life, and those who believe him, who is in him through faith, would inherit life eternal in the kingdom of God. Those who did not believe him would die the 2nd death.

Why Christ came and died to save us? Because God love us so much that he couldn’t standstill to see human destruction, born to die. Because men couldn’t save them selves and that because God couldn’t just forgives their sins and gave them a place in heaven with him, because by doing that he would stand against the integrity of his principle and his law and bring sin into heaven with the risk of it’s development.

By offering himself for the sake of humanity (to save them), God had unmasked the lies and evilness of the Devil, eventually proving himself the way he introduce himself towards men and his angels.

I like this last part. God had to make clear the differences between His character and the character of the enemy, and between the principles of His government and the alternative. This God made clear in Jesus Christ.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/01/06 02:58 AM

Darius, it's not clear to me what you are saying. From what you wrote earlier, it seemed you were defining knowing God as knowing everything about an infinite being. From your most recent post, it appears you have some other definition in mind. What are you trying to say?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/02/06 05:22 PM

James, a long time ago the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit decided to create free moral agents, that is, beings capable of cultivating sinless traits of character. They knew in advance that one third of the angels would rebel and eventually die in the lake of fire. They also knew that the majority of the human race would refuse redemption and die in the lake of fire. But they choose to create angels and mankind anyhow.

Why do you think they chose to create angels and mankind?

DA 22
The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Rom. 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2}

TMK 18
The fall of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent. Redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam, but an eternal purpose, suffered to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world, but for the good of all the worlds that God had created. {TMK 18.2}

AG 129
The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. {AG 129.2}

Posted By: Darius

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/02/06 05:42 PM

Quote:

Darius, it's not clear to me what you are saying. From what you wrote earlier, it seemed you were defining knowing God as knowing everything about an infinite being. From your most recent post, it appears you have some other definition in mind. What are you trying to say?

Knowledge is restricted by the characteristics of the object being known. A finite being can potentially be completely known but that is not a possibility with an infinite being. Hence, to know an infinite being implies a perpetual search for that knowledge.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/02/06 07:47 PM

Sure, a perpetual search for knowledge is implied. Knowing God is an ongoing process; it's eternal life!

Posted By: Darius

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/02/06 08:55 PM

Quote:

Sure, a perpetual search for knowledge is implied. Knowing God is an ongoing process; it's eternal life!

So it is especially premature for any human or group of humans to proclaim that they have the truth about the Creator. One's views may be true but that does not mean it is the truth.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/04/06 06:14 AM

Hi MM.

Thanks for your inputs.

God knew beforehand what would happen with his creation but keep creating it. Surely he had a good reason to do it.

Tom said that the only way for humanity to be saved is through Christ redemption, because through Him:
1. Men got his life back (resurrection from the death).
2. God was reconciled to men
3. Men got forgiveness of sin
4. Men might know the height, width and depth of the love of God
5. Men might be reconciled to God
6. Men might be changed back in the image of God
7. Men might live eternally in heaven and the New World

But studying Tom’s writings, this thought could only work if “death is the inevitable result of sin”, not God creation.

Why? Because if death is God creation, then what is the purpose of redemption?

I think, both of us held to the idea that “death is God creation, same as life”, but I come to think that probably it is not true and Tom is right. What do you think?

In His love

James S.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/04/06 06:21 AM

James, just one minor point. God knew what *could* happen, but did it anyway. It was just as possible for man NOT to sin as to sin. It's important to keep that in mind.

God's creation of man did not make it inevitable that man would sin.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/04/06 09:00 AM

Tom.

You said:

In addition to Adam's sinning, we have each chosen the way of sin in our own lives. So it's not a question of only suffering for someone else's choice, but since we have each one gone our own way, and chosen the way of death, it is inevitable that we should die.

Unquote.

I think, sinning is not a matter of our choice, but indeed it is a part of our selves, the “sin” is within us (Romans 7:16-20), we were conceived and born in sin (Psalm 51:5).

We could not choose ‘to do good” because there is nothing “good” in us. All what we can do is sinning by default. So, sinning is not our choice, but our default because we all were born in sin, in the image of Adam.

I think, we died because we inherit Adam’s death body. That is a fact! It is not because our sins, it has nothing to do with our sins.

Now, what kill Adam? How did he die?

1. Did he die because of his sin? Is death the inevitable result of sinning? Did sin kill him?
2. Did he die because he ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil where within God had created the death?
3. Did he die because he cut himself off from the Source of Life?
4. Did he die because stop eating the fruit of life?

All seems to me Okkay. But which one is the truth of the bible? And the correct answer must comply with the need of humanity to be redeemed.

So, since humanity fate is because of one man’s fault, it seems that Christ came to restore what this one man had made.

In His love

James S

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/04/06 05:35 PM

James, I think you would agree that the quotes I posted on the previous page of this thread clearly teach that before sinned occurred God knew exactly who and how it would play out. Tom disagrees. He believes the quotes teach that God foresaw several outcomes but that He did not know exactly which way it would play out.

The reason I bring this point up is to emphasize God's role. God created sinless beings knowing in advance which ones would sin and die in the lake of fire. He did not cause them to sin. He made them perfect and sinless. But He knew they would choose to sin. And He knew Jesus would live and die to redeem them. He also knew Jesus would succeed on the cross. Tom disagrees.

Sin and death never would have entered the picture if God had chosen not to create free moral agents. But when God chose to create them, knowing which ones would sin and die, sin and death became inevitable. In this sense God is responsible for the existence of sin and death. Again, He did not cause them to sin. But sin and death would not have been possible had He not created beings capable of sinning, beings that He knew in advance would sin and die.

None of the concerns you are exploring on this thread would have been possible had God not chosen to create free moral agents. God is the source of all life. It is God who keeps sinners alive. It would not be possible for sinners to sin if they were dead. God is indirectly responsible for the continued existence of sinning and dying because He continues to grant sinners life. Again, He does not cause them to sin.

Sinning and dying would not happen if God stopped giving sinners life. But in spite of all the sinning and dying that happens God continues give us life. Why? Why does God continue to give us life even though we continue to sin and die? Why did He create free moral agents in the first place, especially since He knew that some would choose to sin? If we can answer these questions I believe it will help us answer the questions you are asking on this thread.

What do you think?

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/04/06 07:11 PM

In response to your questions and comments, James:

1.The quotes you mentioned are dealing with sinful nature, not sinning, which is an act of the will. The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. Consider the following quote:

Quote:

The mind must yield obedience to the royal law of liberty, the law which the Spirit of God impresses upon the heart, and makes plain to the understanding. The expulsion of sin must be the act of the soul itself, in calling into exercise its noblest powers. The only freedom a finite will can enjoy, consists in coming into harmony with the will of God, complying with the conditions that make man a partaker of the divine nature.(OHC 138)

Notice that sin is something which can be expelled by an act of the will.

2.When you ask the question of why Adam died, I assume you are speaking of the first death, not the second. When sin entered into the world, it had in impact, causing things to run down. This is the law of entropy, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The death was not in the apple, but in the sin. Sin is transgression of the law, which is contrary to God's character, which encompasses acting out of harmony with the principle of God's government. Life can only be sustained in accordance with the principles of God's government, which are principles of life, health, and peace. Selifishness can only lead to misery, suffering, pain, and death. A simple way of putting it is that because of sin, things don't word the way they are supposed to. Our bodies break down.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/04/06 07:22 PM

Quote:

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49)

According to EGW, Good took a risk in sending Christ. I agree with her.

Sin and death never would have entered the picture if God had chosen not to create free moral agents.

This much is true. Neither would love enter into the picture had God chosen not to create free moral agents.

But when God chose to create them, knowing which ones would sin and die, sin and death became inevitable. In this sense God is responsible for the existence of sin and death. Again, He did not cause them to sin. But sin and death would not have been possible had He not created beings capable of sinning, beings that He knew in advance would sin and die.

None of the concerns you are exploring on this thread would have been possible had God not chosen to create free moral agents. God is the source of all life. It is God who keeps sinners alive. It would not be possible for sinners to sin if they were dead. God is indirectly responsible for the continued existence of sinning and dying because He continues to grant sinners life. Again, He does not cause them to sin.

Sinning and dying would not happen if God stopped giving sinners life.

This is an interesting thought. If God did not give sinners life, they would stop dying. How about that!

But in spite of all the sinning and dying that happens God continues give us life. Why? Why does God continue to give us life even though we continue to sin and die? Why did He create free moral agents in the first place, especially since He knew that some would choose to sin? If we can answer these questions I believe it will help us answer the questions you are asking on this thread.

On what basis do you insert "especially since He knew that some would choose to sin"? What reason would there be for anyone to sin? Was sinning inevitable? Was there something faulty in our creation to predispose us to sin?

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 06:18 AM

M.M.

Sin and death never would have entered the picture if God had chosen not to create free moral agents. But when God chose to create them, knowing which ones would sin and die, sin and death became inevitable. In this sense God is responsible for the existence of sin and death. Again, He did not cause them to sin. But sin and death would not have been possible had He not created beings capable of sinning, beings that He knew in advance would sin and die.

Unquote.

Is God responsible for the existence of sin and death? Didn’t he create perfect sinless beings? Even though they were created with free will, but when they choose their own will, does this make God responsible?

If God is responsible for the effect of his creating, I think, his redeeming act would no longer be an act of unselfish love but because of a responsibility that must be carried out. He may hate to do this, but he did it because of his responsibility.

For example; I punch and broke the jaw of a man I hate, then I brought him to the doctor, is this done because of love? No but because of responsibility.

So, God did not caused Adam and Eve to sin and the result of their sins then he is not responsible for the outcome, right? And He had warned them before hand, so, I think, it is Adam’s and Eve own fault and their own responsibility for what they had done and the effect to humanity and the world. Satan may be incorporated in this, as it was him who deceived them.

I think, God act of redeeming humanity is pure of his great love towards us, not in the least effected by any sense of responsibility. But if he closed his eyes and forget about us and leave us to our fate (born to die), he just would prove himself not a loving God.

He keep creating free moral beings even though he foresaw their transgression and the inevitable result of sin and death, but he had prepared a way to recreate them back in his image in order they may live again forever even before he created anything.

So, he had made a pattern, a plan, and worked it out.

Is there any sense of responsibility in regards of His creating? I think, God is just doing what he must do, following his pattern.

In His love

James S.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 06:45 AM

Tom.

Okkay, I got it.

Sinning is an act of our will, this we didn’t inherit from Adam. What we inherit from him is his death body; our sinful nature and the propensity to sin.

But, we have a different heart and mind than Adam after he was created. We have a heart and mind of Adam after he sinned, which he had passed on to us through the multiplication of the flesh. An inheritance we got from Adam.

Unfortunately, this inheritance doesn’t bring us any good; we can do nothing good from our self. “All our righteous acts are like filthy rags” – Isaiah 64:6.

So, again, it is not a matter of choice that we choose to sin, but we could only sinning by default. Only the Spirit of God that we follow could expel the sin within us.

EGW said that men died gradually if no longer eat the fruit of life that sustain life, for they were created mortal, not immortal, since only God is immortal.

So, if men were created mortal and could only prolong their life by eating the fruit of life, doesn’t this give us the meaning that death is God creation? By creating mortal agent, he creates death in their bodies, which could only be avoided through external means, such as eating the fruit of life.

This idea just pop up in my mind while I write this post.

By creating mortal man (Adam), isn’t God create the death in his body that could only be avoided by eating the fruit of life, which prolonged his life?

In His love

James S

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 07:29 AM

Tom.

Okkay, I got it.

Sinning is an act of our will, this we didn’t inherit from Adam. What we inherit from him is his death body; our sinful nature and the propensity to sin.

But, we have a different heart and mind than Adam after he was created. We have a heart and mind of Adam after he sinned, which he had passed on to us through the multiplication of the flesh. An inheritance we got from Adam.

Unfortunately, this inheritance doesn’t bring us any good; we can do nothing good from our self. “All our righteous acts are like filthy rags” – Isaiah 64:6.

So, again, it is not a matter of choice that we choose to sin, but we could only sinning by default.

This would certainly be the case had not God in Christ intervened. But intervene He did, so that we have a choice.

Only the Spirit of God that we follow could expel the sin within us.

EGW said that men died gradually if no longer eat the fruit of life that sustain life, for they were created mortal, not immortal, since only God is immortal.

So, if men were created mortal and could only prolong their life by eating the fruit of life, doesn’t this give us the meaning that death is God creation?

No! Death is Satan's creation.

Quote:

The fall of our first parents, with all the woe that has resulted, he charges upon the Creator, leading men to look upon God as the author of sin, and suffering, and death. Jesus was to unveil this deception. (DA 24)

By creating mortal agent, he creates death in their bodies,

Ay ay ay! Ouch! Nooooo! God did not create death in their bodies. God is not like that. God is good. He gives life.

which could only be avoided through external means, such as eating the fruit of life.

This idea just pop up in my mind while I write this post.

By creating mortal man (Adam), isn’t God create the death in his body that could only be avoided by eating the fruit of life, which prolonged his life?

No, this wasn't God's idea. Death comes by way of sin. Without sin, death could not exist. The same lesson man was to learn from eating from the tree of life man may also learn from the gift of breath. God has created us in such a way that it is obvious that we depend on Him for life. He did this for our benefit because He loves us.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 05:55 PM

TE - Neither would love enter into the picture had God chosen not to create free moral agents.

MM – I disagree. Love existed between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

MM - Sinning and dying would not happen if God stopped giving sinners life.

TE - This is an interesting thought. If God did not give sinners life, they would stop dying. How about that!

MM – How? Because there would be no sinners left to sin or die if God stopped giving them life. Only sinners sin and die.

TE - On what basis do you insert "especially since He knew that some would choose to sin"? What reason would there be for anyone to sin? Was sinning inevitable? Was there something faulty in our creation to predispose us to sin?

MM – God knows the end from the beginning. He knew one third of the angels and the majority of the human race would sin and die in the lake of fire. He knew all this before He created the first free moral agent. Please refer to the SOP quotes posted toward the bottom of page 7 of this thread.

He created sinless free moral agents. There was no reason for anyone to sin. Sinning was inevitable in the sense God foresaw it, not in the sense that He ordained it. No one was created with a predisposition to sin.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 06:30 PM

JS - Is God responsible for the existence of sin and death?

MM – Sin and death exist because God continues to give life to sinners.

JS - Didn’t he create perfect sinless beings?

MM – Yes.

JS - Even though they were created with free will, but when they choose their own will, does this make God responsible?

MM – God is not responsible for the choices we make, but He does take responsibility for the choices we make.

JS - If God is responsible for the effect of his creating, I think, his redeeming act would no longer be an act of unselfish love but because of a responsibility that must be carried out. He may hate to do this, but he did it because of his responsibility.

MM – God is not obligated to redeem us just because He is indirectly responsible for the continued existence of sinning and dying. He offers to save us because He love us, not because He is obligated.

JS - So, God did not caused Adam and Eve to sin and the result of their sins then he is not responsible for the outcome, right? And He had warned them before hand, so, I think, it is Adam’s and Eve own fault and their own responsibility for what they had done and the effect to humanity and the world. Satan may be incorporated in this, as it was him who deceived them.

MM – True, God did not force them to sin. Sin and death would not have been possible, however, if God had not created them in the first place. Sinning and dying are possible because God created beings capable of sinning and dying. Sinning and dying continues to occur because God did not destroy Adam and Eve. If God had destroyed them the day they sinned, like He promised, the human race would have ended. No sinners would have been born to perpetuate sinning and dying.

JS - I think, God act of redeeming humanity is pure of his great love towards us, not in the least effected by any sense of responsibility. But if he closed his eyes and forget about us and leave us to our fate (born to die), he just would prove himself not a loving God.

MM – I agree.

JS - He keep creating free moral beings even though he foresaw their transgression and the inevitable result of sin and death, but he had prepared a way to recreate them back in his image in order they may live again forever even before he created anything.

MM – I agree.

JS - So, he had made a pattern, a plan, and worked it out. Is there any sense of responsibility in regards of His creating? I think, God is just doing what he must do, following his pattern.

MM – I believe God is doing what He wants to do, not what He is required to do.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 06:53 PM

James, I agree that death is inevitable if we do not or cannot eat from the tree of life. This will be true throughout eternity. To say that death resides within us, like a dormant seed, might be stretching it, though. Remember, the wages of sin is instant death, not the gradual one we experience now. God causes the second death, not natural law.

The plan of salvation made the first death possible. Otherwise, the human race would have ended with the immediate punishment and destruction of Adam and Eve. Notice also that sinners could live forever if God permitted them to eat from 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.
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.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 07:42 PM

TE - Neither would love enter into the picture had God chosen not to create free moral agents.

MM – I disagree. Love existed between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This seems like a silly point to make. Of course I was referring to the love of the created beings. I am aware of the fact that God is eternal, and that He is love.

MM - Sinning and dying would not happen if God stopped giving sinners life.

TE - This is an interesting thought. If God did not give sinners life, they would stop dying. How about that!

MM – How? Because there would be no sinners left to sin or die if God stopped giving them life. Only sinners sin and die.

If God did not give sinners life they would stop dying because they would already be dead. I don't understand why this is a point that needs to be made. Isn't that self evident?

TE - On what basis do you insert "especially since He knew that some would choose to sin"? What reason would there be for anyone to sin? Was sinning inevitable? Was there something faulty in our creation to predispose us to sin?

MM – God knows the end from the beginning. He knew one third of the angels and the majority of the human race would sin and die in the lake of fire. He knew all this before He created the first free moral agent. Please refer to the SOP quotes posted toward the bottom of page 7 of this thread.

He created sinless free moral agents. There was no reason for anyone to sin. Sinning was inevitable in the sense God foresaw it, not in the sense that He ordained it. No one was created with a predisposition to sin.

Was sinning inevitable? The why doesn't really matter regarding the answer to the question. Either it was or it wasn't. If it was, then God is responsible for its existence. There's no way around that.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 07:45 PM

MM – God is not responsible for the choices we make, but He does take responsibility for the choices we make.

Excellent!!!

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 08:38 PM

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 08:40 PM

Quoted from M.M.

The plan of salvation made the first death possible. Otherwise, the human race would have ended with the immediate punishment and destruction of Adam and Eve. Notice also that sinners could live forever if God permitted them to eat from the tree of life.

Unquote.

If God didn’t plan to reveal his great agape love, Adam and Eve would instantly die when they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Who killed them? Satan? Sin? God? The same we may ask for Lucifer.

I think the correct answer would be God.

But because there is a plan of salvation, the transgression of Adam and Eve in Eden resulted in the first death of humanity. Who killed them? How they died?

Death is a state where all of our vital organ stopped working; maybe part of it would kill us too. Stop the air supply to our lung, and we will die. So, who killed us? Our lungs because of oxygen deficiency? Our brain? Our heart? Our sin? Satan? God?

Men could die easily, because they inherit the death from Adam. And Adam died because his sin killed him, since death is the inevitable result of sinning, according to Tom.

Or Adam died because he no longer ate the fruit of life that sustain his life. With the absence of the fruit of life as their menu, Adam and Eve died, and gradually their descendants got a degeneration problem, getting weaker and weaker and their age getting shorter.

It makes sense, because only Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of life. Their close descendants maybe still inherit the power of life brought in the blood and flesh of Adam and Eve, they too live long. But their next generation to generation their age become shorter, maybe because gradually with the passing of time, the effect in Adam’s descendant getting weaker and weaker and finally gone.

Therefore, God cut the way for Adam and his family to the tree of life, otherwise, as the bible said, sinners would live forever if they eat again from the fruit of life.

In His love

James S.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 08:42 PM

So, now, I have some ideas regarding Adam’s death.

Tom’s version: death is the inevitable result of sinning, like gravity, that always take things down.

M.M’s version: death as life is God’s creation; at least death is not the inevitable result of sin, but an act part of God.

M.M. agree with James Idea: Death happens because of the absence of the fruit of life in Adam’s menu, since this fruit sustain life.

Which one is the truth of the bible? Which one is strongly connected to the need of humanity to be redeemed?

I really want to find out.

In His love

James S

Posted By: Darius

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 10:08 PM

There is no real need for this focus on death. The only immortal being in the universe is the Creator. Every other being is mortal and will die unless sustained in life by the Creator (not by eating of a tree. Let us keep the metaphors straight). Eternal life is a gift; it has always been.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 10:45 PM

Quoted from Tom’s post.

Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

According to EGW, Good took a risk in sending Christ. I agree with her.
Unquote.

It is interesting to think why EGW state that God took a risk in sending Christ.

Is it because there might be a chance that Christ would follow his own will and stand against the father? If he did so, does the Father foresaw it?

Yes, He foresaw the possibility. That's why it says there was a risk. If He had foreseen there was no possibility of Christ's failure, then there would have been no risk.

Or could Christ hide it from the father?

This is in line with my thought, why did God keep creating even he foresaw that Lucifer and some angels would rebel and sinned?

He foresaw the *possibility* of rebellion. Rebellion had to be possible in the creation of free moral agents. But God did not intend that rebellion should occur, and it was by no means necessary.

Why he continues with his plan of creation knowing that Adam and Eve would be deceived by Lucifer and sinned, bringing forth humanity that is doomed to die.

It was never God's intention that Adam and Eve should sin, just as it was not His intention that the unfallen worlds should not sin. There's no difference between these other worlds and ours, except that our parents chose to sin and their didn't. God foresaw the possibility of the other worlds falling just as He saw the possiblity of ours falling; but ours was the only one that did.

The effect of all these rebellion, Michael must reincarnate in human body to die for the sake of humanity, to safe them. Why all these effort, what is it purpose?

Sorry, but I didn't understand this question.

Is it possible that the Father wants to test the Son? A test of loyalty or to test their love to each other is really agape or not? But if God knew the outcome, it is no longer a test. But if there is a risk of failure and eternal loss, then the Father might not know precisely what the outcome would be, because Christ as God himself, possibly might hide something from the Father, as the Father hide his face from the Son at the cross. Or maybe because of sin, something could be hidden between the Father and the Son.

It's not a matter of something being hidden, but of free will making it possible for there to be more than one outcome, both of which God foresaw.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/05/06 11:04 PM

Quote:

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

Please note that God did not allow Satan and his host to reap the full result of sin, which would have caused them to perish, because it would not have been apparent that this was the inevitable result of sin. It would have instead appeared to be an arbitrary action on God's part. Death is inherent in sin. One cannot have sin without death. When Christ became sin, He died. God didn't kill Him, but He died because of sin. This is one of the key things His death was intended to demonstrate.

But because there is a plan of salvation, the transgression of Adam and Eve in Eden resulted in the first death of humanity. Who killed them? How they died?

Death is a state where all of our vital organ stopped working; maybe part of it would kill us too. Stop the air supply to our lung, and we will die. So, who killed us? Our lungs because of oxygen deficiency? Our brain? Our heart? Our sin? Satan? God?

Men could die easily, because they inherit the death from Adam. And Adam died because his sin killed him, since death is the inevitable result of sinning, according to Tom.

Or Adam died because he no longer ate the fruit of life that sustain his life. With the absence of the fruit of life as their menu, Adam and Eve died, and gradually their descendants got a degeneration problem, getting weaker and weaker and their age getting shorter.

It makes sense, because only Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of life. Their close descendants maybe still inherit the power of life brought in the blood and flesh of Adam and Eve, they too live long. But their next generation to generation their age become shorter, maybe because gradually with the passing of time, the effect in Adam’s descendant getting weaker and weaker and finally gone.

Therefore, God cut the way for Adam and his family to the tree of life, otherwise, as the bible said, sinners would live forever if they eat again from the fruit of life.

The tree of life has healing powers, and would have prolonged man's physical lifetime, which would have served to prolong his misery. God, in mercy, cut of man's access to the tree of life. As it was, Adam's life was a great burden to him. God continued the same process, in principle, by allowing man to eat meat after the flood, resulting in our life span being cut down to the "three score and ten" (70 years) that we have until this day.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/06/06 04:36 AM

Quoted from Darius.

There is no real need for this focus on death. The only immortal being in the universe is the Creator. Every other being is mortal and will die unless sustained in life by the Creator (not by eating of a tree. Let us keep the metaphors straight). Eternal life is a gift; it has always been.

Unquote.

In other word, death happens because God no longer sustain the life of this being, which make you in one group with M.M.

Is death an inevitable result of sin, such as gravity that takes all things down? In the sense that God has nothing to do with death, He is not the author or the Source of death, He is only the Source of life.

Or is God the Source of death as He is the Source of life?

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. NIV.

Isaiah 46:7
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.

Deuteronomy 30:19
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.

Deuteronomy 33:39
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

From these verses I got the impression that our death is connected to God.
Could we find other things that may sustained the correct one of those two ideas which is very contradictory?

If God is the author of death, the Source of death:
1. If he takes the life of his being when he thinks the time is right, redemption is not necessary, Christ is not needed, and God has no son.
2. If death is Adam’s choice, and God only execute the death upon us, we need Christ to redeem us and God’s love need Him to save us.
If Satan is the author of death, the source of death:
1. Then humanity is doomed to die for we were all Satan’s children, he is our father since the day Adam choose to sin.
2. Satan becoming another God; God’s creature who become a Creator himself and has the power of death upon us, while God has the power of life.
3. Redemption is impossible because it is not God that set before us the way of death but Satan (Deu. 30:19), which having the power of death upon us, may kill us anytime he thinks is right.

Maybe Satan is just the one that makes death emerge but not the author or the creator or the source of death. Maybe Satan is the author or creator to emerge the death from God hands, but the source of death would still be God alone.

Ah, I got confuse, need your inputs on this.

In His love

James S

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/06/06 04:54 AM

Tom.

What make you think that if God is the author and creator of death makes him look cruel, savage and not good?

Isaiah 46:7
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.

Evil, if not exercised, is only a word with a meaning, when exercised become evilness.

God created his free moral agents (angels and men) without the knowledge of good and evil. They must find out themselves what is good and what is evil. Only God who knows what good is and what evil is.

God knew exactly what good is, because he is good.
God knew exactly what evil is for he is the creator of evil, but he is not evil.
God is the Source of life and sustain all his creation with his power of life.
God create evil and when his creatures come to know what evil is, he kill them (Deu. 33:9) because evilness could not stand and live together for eternity with righteousness.

If he kill them, then death is his creation, God is the Source of death.

Only death would not happens to his creation who was created with the plan to live eternally if evilness (sin) didn’t emerge, which was the result of his creation exercising their knowledge and free will choice in order to know what evil is, but comes out worse (against His principle).

In this way, I don’t see God as cruel, or savage, or evil.
He is still a good and loving God.

In His love

James S.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/08/06 06:13 AM

Okkay.

I must decide which view I would accept and use in my book to be distributed to my fellow Christians, my family Sunday keepers and my SDA’s fellowmen.

And since I would only accept and use views that are supported by the bible, I must decide that Tom’s view even though is very logic and make sense, but is not supported by the bible and upheld only by EGW.

But since EGW teaching is a lesser light against the bible, I use the bible idea.

I decide to view death as an inevitable result of sin, but created and executed by God himself without standing against his principle of love, for death is Adam’s own choice in spite he had been warned previously.

Therefore, since humanity couldn’t save their selves, their fate is born to die and needs God to redeem them and save them. God’s love needs Him to redeem and save humanity but to act without standing against his own integrity and the law principle, He has been left with no choice but to offer himself as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin and redemption of men through the birth, life, death and resurrection of His own begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

In His love

James S

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/08/06 07:53 AM

Quote:

And since I would only accept and use views that are supported by the bible, I must decide that Tom’s view even though is very logic and make sense, but is not supported by the bible and upheld only by EGW.

I think every point I've made I have supported by Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy. Could you please name some specific point I've made which is not supported by such? At least I'm glad you think it's logical

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/08/06 08:08 AM

Tom.

What make you think that if God is the author and creator of death makes him look cruel, savage and not good?

The following makes me thing this, James:

Quote:

The fall of our first parents, with all the woe that has resulted, he (Satan) charges upon the Creator, leading men to look upon God as the author of sin, and suffering, and death. Jesus was to unveil this deception. (DA 24)

If God really were the author of sin and death, it wouldn't make any sense to say that Jesus came to unveil this deception of Satan, would it?

Isaiah 46:7
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.

The Scripture often speaks of God doing that which He permits. For example, the Bible in one spot says that God killed Saul. It says God founded the Old Covenant. It says God caused David to number Israel. And here is says that God creates evil, but this is only in the sense that He permits it to happen, and as the Sovereign of the Universe, He assumes responsibility for everything that happens in it, even when this responsibility costs the sacrifice of His son.

To know what God is like, look to Jesus Christ! He is the perfect picture of God's character. Look at how He reacted to the woman caught in adultery. "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." Look how He reacted to Judas, His betrayer -- He washed his feet! He called him friend. Look that parable of the prodigal Son, of how the father accepted the son while he was a long way off, not even waiting to hear his story. From Jesus Christ we understand the true picture of God.

Evil, if not exercised, is only a word with a meaning, when exercised become evilness.

God created his free moral agents (angels and men) without the knowledge of good and evil. They must find out themselves what is good and what is evil. Only God who knows what good is and what evil is.

God never intended for us to know evil. This was the enemy's idea. If God's plans had been followed, no human being would ever have known the pain, suffering, misery and death that sin causes. God is good!

God knew exactly what good is, because he is good.
God knew exactly what evil is for he is the creator of evil, but he is not evil.

Satan is the creator of evil, not God.

God is the Source of life and sustain all his creation with his power of life.
God create evil and when his creatures come to know what evil is, he kill them (Deu. 33:9) because evilness could not stand and live together for eternity with righteousness.

Sin causes death, not God! God's law says, "Thou shalt not kill." If we want to know what God is like, we should look to Jesus. When Jesus was urged to destroy those who were opposing Him he said, "You do not know what spirit you are of." To kill is the spirit of Satan. Jesus was manifestly against violence. Jesus never did evil, and He never killed anyone. Jesus submitted to violence, even to the death of the cross, but He did not perpetrate it. Once again, if we want to know what God is really like, we should look to Jesus.

If he kill them, then death is his creation, God is the Source of death.

If sin kills them, and Satan invented sin, then Satan is the source of death. If God were the source of death, why would Jesus have come to unveil this deception? It wouldn't be a deception if it were true, would it?

Only death would not happens to his creation who was created with the plan to live eternally if evilness (sin) didn’t emerge, which was the result of his creation exercising their knowledge and free will choice in order to know what evil is, but comes out worse (against His principle).

In this way, I don’t see God as cruel, or savage, or evil.
He is still a good and loving God.

This last part makes sense. The question to ask is if God intended for sin to happen. When you look at the character of Jesus Christ, what do you think? Do you think Jesus Christ intended for sin to happen? Do you think He likes it when we suffer? Remember that God is just like Jesus!

In His love

James S.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/08/06 05:37 PM

James, I agree with you. Tom's view of death goes against what I believe to be true in the Bible and the SOP. I also believe the SOP agrees with the Bible. We die the first death because God will not allow us, in our sinful state, to eat from the tree of life.

We will be resurrected to die the second death if we reject redemption in Jesus. Again, God is the one who will punish and destroy us in the lake of fire. He stops giving us life. In this sense God is the source of death. Which is right. Only God has the right to give and take life according to His love and wisdom.

Humanity needs redemption because God chose to create free moral agents who chose to sin. The only way to eliminate sin is to eliminate sinners. There are two ways to eliminate sinners - 1) Empower them to stop sinning, 2) Destroy them in the lake of fire.

The only way to empower sinners to stop sinning is to motivate them to want to stop sinning. The only way to accomplish this was for Jesus to live and die on our behalf. When we accept Him as our personal Saviour we are free to sin and free to imitate His sinless example. We are not free to sin until we are from sin.

Jesus also had to die for the sins we committed before we were born again and saved from a life of sinning. God cannot simply overlook our history of sinning. The wages of sinning is death, and Jesus had to pay that penalty in order to forgive us, to empower us to live without sinning, and to reward us with eternal life in the New Earth. Thank God for Jesus!

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/09/06 09:33 AM

Quoted from Tom post.
________________________________________

And since I would only accept and use views that are supported by the bible, I must decide that Tom’s view even though is very logic and make sense, but is not supported by the bible and upheld only by EGW.________________________________________
I think every point I've made I have supported by Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy. Could you please name some specific point I've made which is not supported by such? At least I'm glad you think it's logical

Unquote.

I have checked your posts here in this thread, your idea that humanity died because of their sin, stressing it: “sin causes death”, has no scriptural support, just a logic based on EGW quotes.

But I must admit that it is very logic indeed and make me must postpone my decision in order to study it further. If this idea is so important for you and Mike that both of you didn’t come to an agreement in the past 3 years till now, then surely there must be a good reason for it.

You wrote:
The death was not in the apple, but in the sin.

Death is inherent in sin. One cannot have sin without death. When Christ became sin, He died. God didn't kill Him, but He died because of sin. This is one of the key things His death was intended to demonstrate.
Unquote.

This idea is strong.

Paul said: For since death came through a man, the resurrection from the death comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21,22

Another quote from Paul: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. Romans 5:12

My understanding for what Paul had said is:
1. Humanity died because they were incorporated in Adam’s body even they were unborn yet, which means, the fate of humanity is secure, born to die, according to 1 Corinthians 15:22.
2. Humanity died because all have sinned.

The question now is, “what kills Adam?” How did he die?
We have two solid answers here, which one is supported by the bible?

1. Sin causes death, IOW – Adam died because of his sin, as according to Tom Ewall
2. Adam died because his life is no longer sustained by the fruit of life. Created immortal, he only could survive and continue to live if he continue eats the fruit of life, this is as according to M.M.

Hey, I like to have thoughts regarding this matter from others, especially you Daryl.

In His love

James S.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/09/06 09:51 AM

M.M.

You saidL

James, I agree that death is inevitable if we do not or cannot eat from the tree of life. This will be true throughout eternity. To say that death resides within us, like a dormant seed, might be stretching it, though. Remember, the wages of sin is instant death, not the gradual one we experience now. God causes the second death, not natural law.

The plan of salvation made the first death possible. Otherwise, the human race would have ended with the immediate punishment and destruction of Adam and Eve. Notice also that sinners could live forever if God permitted them to eat from the tree of life.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

If there is no plan of salvation, there would be only 1st death without 2nd death, right? Whether gradually or instantly, it doesn’t matter. What important is: Is this death the inevitable result of sin or is it sin that caused death, or do we die because we no longer eat the fruit of life. Why we no longer eat the fruit of life? Because we have sinned and God had expelled us from Eden and we could no longer stretch our arm to reach and take the fruit of life. Which was God concern, otherwise sinners would live forever.

In this case, it could not be sin that causes death, because it was overruled by eating the fruit of life.

In His love

James S

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/09/06 12:06 PM

I thought I would try to clarifying this topic in a different way. For sake of brevity I did not give scripture references, but would be happy to do so, on any questions.

On the question of life and death, a number of things need to be realized. Eternal life exists only in the spirit and not in the (body) physics. There is no body (physics) heavenly or earthly that has inherent eternal existence except it continually derives it so from the spirit. When God created free moral beings he gave them life in the spirit, and he gave them life in the body. These are two different kinds of life; one is spiritual, the other physical. Had God given only spiritual life; then as soon as one sinned or considered sin, such would have died, ceased to exist; because that is the nature of sin. In this, sin is synonymous with death. It is the transgression against the life of the spirit. It is separation from the life of God and the spirit of God. It is death. Such is sin.

The point of being a free moral being is the ability of love, faith, choice, and judgment. All of these are spiritual. These are in themselves both, abilities of independence and abilities of fellowship. We were created in the image of God, meaning that he also is a free moral being with these same abilities. In order to be free and have the ability to exercise these abilities, one must have the ability of survival on either side of the equation, or the ability to consider, evaluate, and re-evaluate would be impossible.

So when God created free moral beings he gave them life in the spirit, and he gave them life in the body. When the spirit was one with God, it was the life of the body. When the spirit separated from God it became subject to the life of the body. Had God not made it so; there would be no possibility to be a free moral being. In this manner freedom of consideration in spirit and evaluation and choice are enabled. Eating of the tree of life perpetuated the life of the body which otherwise by itself is in degenerative mode. The degenerative aspect is particularly keyed to the spirit. Being one with God is eternal life in spirit.

The issue to come to grips with is that sin is committed in the spirit and sin removes the spirit from God’s life, thus establishing death in the spirit. The spirit now deriving its life from the body continues to live “death”. Thus death reigns in the realm of sin. The plan of salvation immediately interposed the striving of God’s spirit with the fallen spirit; namely between death and us. ‘Time’ is provided through the life of the body for reconsideration of spirit, during which we may evaluate the truth and choose eternal life in the spirit. If we choose life, the spirit may again be the life of the body. Christ said; man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. The word establishes the life of the spirit, and bread the life of the body.

Since all have awareness about the life of the body more or less, but not all know the life of the spirit, I should define it briefly. The life of the spirit is what salvation and redemption is about. It is in the spirit that righteousness or sin is exists and thus it is there that life or death reign. The manner of spirit depicts its life or death. The nature of eternal life in the spirit can readily be seen in the description of the fruit of the Holy Spirit which is also described as the glory of God. Therefore Christ said: It is the spirit that quickeneth (gives life); the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

How is death in the spirit seen? This is not as easy to recognize as life, because the existence of the spirit continues, though being dead, by drawing its life from the body. The biggest deception of sin is that sin in the spirit establishes a justice that kills, which means death. This justice, sin has successfully painted as God’s. We can see the results of the working of death through the body life in the following scriptures:
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:19-21) Because the fallen spirit lives by the flesh it lives to please the flesh.

Salvation is primarily the work of saving the fallen spirit from the law of sin and death and its living by the flesh, to the law of the spirit of life in Christ. The issue of physical life is secondary and dependent on the spiritual.

This is why Christ says again: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Joh 5:24

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/09/06 07:14 PM

JS - If there is no plan of salvation, there would be only 1st death without 2nd death, right? Whether gradually or instantly, it doesn’t matter.

MM - Actually Adam and Eve would have instantly died the second death had Jesus not implemented the plan of salvation. Without the plan of salvation a slow gradual first death would have served no purpose. It matters because it would have been cruel of God to allow them to suffer on as sinners with no hope.

Again, death is not the result of sinning. We die the first death because God will not allow us to eat of the tree of life in our sinul state. Otherwise, we could live forever as sinners. But Jesus loves us too much to permit us to live forever in a sinful state. In this sense the first death is a kind of blessing.

Also, the second death is not the result of sinning. Unsaved sinners will die the second death because God will resurrect them and then punish and destroy them in the lake of fire. The reason He will do this is because their unwillingness to embrace Jesus as their personal Saviour unfits them for heaven, and because the wages of sin is death, namely, death by fire.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/09/06 07:28 PM

John, I agree there is a distinction between body and spirit. However, when Jesus breathed the breath of life into the nostrils of Adam he became a living soul. Body plus breath equals life. The two cannot be separated. We are physical and spiritual beings simultaneously - not independently. That's why health reform is so important. The relationship between the health of the body and the health of the spirit is inseparable. BTW, when I use the word "spirit" I mean the faculties of the mind - not some disembodied conscious thing.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/09/06 10:35 PM

MM, you wrote,

Quote:

James, I agree with you. Tom's view of death goes against what I believe to be true in the Bible and the SOP.

I think what you really meant to say was, "James, I disagree with you" because if you pay attention to what James wrote you will see he said this:

Quote:

I must decide that Tom’s view even though is very logic and make sense, but is not supported by the bible and upheld only by EGW.

James is saying that my view is upheld by the SOP, which is exactly the opposite of what you are saying! Oops.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/09/06 11:06 PM

John, I would interested in seeing any Scripture references you had in mind while writing your post, most especially in reference to the first paragraphs.

I had a question about this: "Eating of the tree of life perpetuated the life of the body which otherwise by itself is in degenerative mode." I don't understand that there could be a "degenerative mode" without sin.

I like especially what you wrote about justice. You could flesh that out if you wanted to, which would be guaranteed to be accompanied by great applause on the part of some.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 12:14 AM

Quote:

The soul that sins shall die. (Exek 18:20)

Quote:

Sin pays its wages - death. (Rom. 6:23 GNB)

Quote:

Death gets its power to hurt from sin. (1 Cor. 15:16 GNB)

Quote:

Sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. (James 1:15 GNB)

But I must admit that it is very logic indeed and make me must postpone my decision in order to study it further. If this idea is so important for you and Mike that both of you didn’t come to an agreement in the past 3 years till now, then surely there must be a good reason for it.

Lol. Yes, Mike and I have very different concepts of God's character. Here are some statements from Mike speaks of "satisfying His thirst for vengeance." and agreed with this reprisal of his beliefs.

Quote:

When the wicked are resurrected, God will cast them into a lake of fire, something like molten lava, which He will keep them supernaturally alive to suffer by being scalded, or boiled, until they pay by physical suffering for each sin they have committed. The righteous who witness this will be rejoice to see this happen, even when it involves their children or other loved ones. Holy angels who witness the suffering of the wicked will rejoice. God will rejoice in the suffering of our loved ones.

I see things very differently.

You wrote:
The death was not in the apple, but in the sin.

Death is inherent in sin. One cannot have sin without death. When Christ became sin, He died. God didn't kill Him, but He died because of sin. This is one of the key things His death was intended to demonstrate.
Unquote.

This idea is strong.

Paul said: For since death came through a man, the resurrection from the death comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21,22

Another quote from Paul: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. Romans 5:12

My understanding for what Paul had said is:
1. Humanity died because they were incorporated in Adam’s body even they were unborn yet, which means, the fate of humanity is secure, born to die, according to 1 Corinthians 15:22.
2. Humanity died because all have sinned.

The question now is, “what kills Adam?” How did he die?
We have two solid answers here, which one is supported by the bible?

1. Sin causes death, IOW – Adam died because of his sin, as according to Tom Ewall
2. Adam died because his life is no longer sustained by the fruit of life. Created immortal, he only could survive and continue to live if he continue eats the fruit of life, this is as according to M.M.

When you speak of death, it would be helpful if you made clear what death you are talking about. Are you talking about physical death, or the second death? Paul explains that death comes from sin by the following:

Quote:

Sin came into the world through one man, and his sin brought death with it. (Rom. 5:12 GNB)

This makes is very clear that death came by sin, doesn't it?

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 12:52 AM

The Spirit of Prophecy tells us:

Quote:

It is Satan's constant effort to misrepresent the character of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great controversy. (GC 569)

What is the nature of sin? Does it result in death? Is the following statement true?

Again, death is not the result of sinning.

No, it is not. There is hardly a point in inspiration more firmly established than that sin results in death. It is indeed important that we understand this, which explains why the enemy is so determined that we don't. Here are statements from both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy which establish that sin results in death.

Quote:

The soul that sins shall die. (Exek 18:20)

Quote:

Sin pays its wages - death. (Rom. 6:23 GNB)

Quote:

Death gets its power to hurt from sin. (1 Cor. 15:16 GNB)

Quote:

Sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. (James 1:15 GNB)

Quote:

Sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men. (Romans 5:12)

Quote:

Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin.(DA 764)

Quote:

We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. (FILB 84)

Quote:

Show that it was sin which marred God's perfect work; that thorns and thistles, sorrow and pain and death, are all the result of disobedience to God. (FILB 274)

Quote:

In all His dealings with His creatures God has maintained the principles of righteousness by revealing sin in its true character--by demonstrating that its sure result is misery and death. (God's Amazing Grace 73)

Quote:

The sin of man has brought the sure result,--decay, deformity, and death. (1SDABC 1085)

Quote:

Adam and Eve persuaded themselves that in so small a matter as eating of the forbidden fruit, there could not result such terrible consequences as God had declared. But this small matter was sin, the transgression of God's immutable and holy law, and it opened the floodgates of death and untold woe upon our world. . . . Let us not esteem sin as a trivial thing. (That I May Know Him 14)

Indeed, let's not! Sin is a terrible thing, which we tend to vastly underestimate. "But few realize the sinfulness of sin." (Conflict and Courage 109)

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 02:07 AM

Quote:

The sin of man has brought the sure result,--decay, deformity, and death. (1SDABC 1085)

I'd like to say a bit more about this one. If death were the result of not eating from a tree, rather than being from sin, why would the death of animals result? Was it because God did not permit them to eat from the tree of life? Or was it because of sin? Why did decay come about? Was it due to a lack of access to the tree of life, or because of sin?

The whole earth groans under the curse of sin.

Posted By: Charity

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 04:40 AM

MM, re; that quote in the third post by Tom on this page (11) - you're saying God rejoices in the suffering of the wicked? It says He has no pleasure in their death. Granted, there are times when God encourages rejoicing - at the drowning of Pharoah's army, at the future destruction of Babylon. The rejoicing in those cases is because of God's deliverence though isn't it?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 04:45 AM

Tom, please quote me, instead of you, when sharing my views. Thank you. Here's how Sister White wrote about the lake of fire and the rejoicing that attends it:

EW 294, 295
Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused. Then I saw that Satan and all the wicked host were consumed, and the justice of God was satisfied; and all the angelic host, and all the redeemed saints, with a loud voice said, "Amen!" {EW 294.2}

EW 51
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}

EW 218
The soul that sinneth, it shall die an everlasting death-- a death from which there will be no hope of resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased. {EW 218.1}

GC 672, 673
Saith the Lord: "Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit." "I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. . . . I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. . . . I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. . . . Thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Ezekiel 28:6-8, 16-19. {GC 672.1}

"Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." "The indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies: He hath utterly destroyed them, He hath delivered them to the slaughter." "Upon the wicked He shall rain quick burning coals, fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup." Isaiah 9:5; 34:2; Psalm 11:6, margin. Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:10. The earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire. It is the time of the judgment and perdition of ungodly men--"the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion." Isaiah 34:8. {GC 672.2}

The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Proverbs 11:31. They "shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts." Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch--Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. {GC 673.1}

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 04:49 AM

Tom.

Now you have shown the Scripture back’s up, good.

For me, the most important thing is that God has nothing to do with sin and death of men; it is all their own choice. How they died does not really matter, what matter is that man were created in perfection, holy, with a free will choice to live eternally but died because of sin which is their own choice.

From this point view, I could understand the need of humanity to be redeemed and the need of God to redeem men.

If God gives life and then at some time when he thinks is right he takes out the life of that man, then I understand that redemption is not needed and Christ does not exist. This is what I want to find out.

But, are our death connected to God taking out our life or not?

In His love

James S

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 04:55 AM

Mark, the rejoicing that attends those who behold the punishment and destruction of the wicked during the seven last plagues and in the lake of fire is recorded throughout the Bible and the SOP.

Revelation
16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.

Revelation
18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong [is] the Lord God who judgeth her.

I agree with you that Jesus has "no pleasure" in the death of the wicked, but when justice is finally served He will be satisfied, His wrath will be appeased, He will rejoice that sin and death are eliminated with unsaved sinners in the lake of fire. That's how the inspired authors describe it.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 05:02 AM

James, sinners die because Jesus does not allow them to eat of the tree of life. Why and how they die matters very much. But more importantly, why and how they can avoid dying in the lake of fire matters very much. We need redemption in Jesus because without it we will die in the lake of fire.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 06:14 AM

Quote:

MM: sinners die because Jesus does not allow them to eat of the tree of life. Why and how they die matters very much. But more importantly, why and how they can avoid dying in the lake of fire matters very much. We need redemption in Jesus because without it we will die in the lake of fire.

What is point MM? Maybe Jesus should just let them eat of the tree of life and then he will not need to burn them in the lake of fire. Will that solve the problem?

The problem is not the absence of the tree of life; the problem is sin in the heart. This is why and where salvation and redemption are needed. Once that is accomplished the tree of life will be handy again.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 06:40 AM

Quote:

Tom, please quote me, instead of you, when sharing my views.

I wrote what I understood to be your view, and asked if it was correct, and you responded that it was.

Me:

Quote:

TE - When the wicked are resurrected, God will cast them into a lake of fire, something like molten lava, which He will keep them supernaturally alive to suffer by being scalded, or boiled, until they pay by physical suffering for each sin they have committed. The righteous who witness this will be rejoice to see this happen, even when it involves their children or other loved ones. Holy angels who witness the suffering of the wicked will rejoice. God will rejoice in the suffering of our loved ones.

You:

Quote:

MM - Correct.

The salient point is that God does something to supernaturally keep the wicked alive to that He can cause them excruciating pain. It takes a special view of God's character to hold to a thought like this.

Do you wish to adjust your view in some way? Do you now differ from my description of your view? If you would like to alter it, please feel free to do so.

If I state your view in my words, and ask you if what I stated is an accurate representation of your view, and you say it is, there is no reason for me not to quote it. If you no longer feel it is an accurate representation of your view, then please restate it, and I will quote that instead.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 06:42 AM

Here is some more scripture James, some of the clearest scripture on the fact that sin causes death is found in Romans 7, but by no means the only place.

the motions of sins

did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid.

But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good;

that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

In Verse 13, Paul clearly states that God does not use the law to cause death, But sin, uses the law to work death.

Does this make sense? How does sin use the law to work death?

That as sin hath reigned unto death,

even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 06:49 AM

Quote:

But, are our death connected to God taking out our life or not?

James, if we wish to understand God's character, we should study the life and character of Jesus Christ. When Jesus was urged to take life, how did He respond?

Quote:

54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9:54-56)

God is not the author of death. Death is intrinsic to sin. You can't have sin without death.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 06:54 AM

MM, I'm not sure you noticed this:
------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

The sin of man has brought the sure result,--decay, deformity, and death. (1SDABC 1085)

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 08:42 AM

Quote:

Tom: John, I would interested in seeing any Scripture references you had in mind while writing your post, most especially in reference to the first paragraphs.

Since you did not specify which particular thoughts I will guess at some.

Spirit is life; eternal life.

It is the spirit that (quickeneth) gives life

the last Adam was made a quickening (life giving) spirit.

Sin or righteousness is in the spirit.

For we know that the law is spiritual

If the law is spiritual then it takes the spirit to live it.

Life by spirit:

the just shall live by faith

the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free

from the law of sin and death

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 09:00 AM

Quote:

Tom: I had a question about this: "Eating of the tree of life perpetuated the life of the body which otherwise by itself is in degenerative mode." I don't understand that there could be a "degenerative mode" without sin.

My statements were very brief. I will repeat them, and expand a little.

Eating of the tree of life perpetuated the life of the body which otherwise by itself is in degenerative mode. The degenerative aspect is particularly keyed to the spirit. Being one with God is eternal life in spirit.

There are two sides to your question:

The one side has the key in the word “by itself”. There is a tendency to think of heavenly physical things as having eternal life inherently. If eternal life were inherently in physics it would cease to be virtue. The primary point is that in heaven all living things live by the spirit and not vice-versa.
The first scripture that comes to my mind is Heb 1:3 … upholding all things by the word of his power, and … the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life Joh 6:63

All things are upheld by his spirit. This one thing I have seen is that the secret of eternal life is hidden not in any fantastical physics, but in the spirit of God. This too is the key as to why sin is death; it is a spirit contrary to life.

The other side has the key in the word “without sin”, as opposed to “in all righteousness”. This can get difficult to express. I stated it this way: The degenerative aspect is particularly keyed to the spirit. The point is the need to allow for growth and learning and maturing of spirit until we all come to the fullness of the stature of Christ. So any lack of completeness of spirit would be a degenerative mode (lack of sustenance of the body), needing the tree of life until such time as apprehended. I think of angels that did not sin or fall but did not see through Satan’s sophistry until the cross, when the spirit was manifested.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 06:36 PM

Tom, on page 11 of this thread I quoted several inspired insights that describe God's feelings and attitudes in regard to the punishment and death of the wicked in the lake of fire. Please explain how my view differs from the apostle John's and Sister White's in the quotes I posted. Thank you.

Jesus has "no pleasure" in the death of the wicked, but when justice is finally served He will be satisfied, His wrath will be appeased, and He will rejoice that sin and death are eliminated with unsaved sinners in the lake of fire. That's how the inspired authors describe it.

Tom and John, as to what causes the first death I think it is clear in the Bible and SOP that not being able to eat regularly of the tree of life is what causes us to gradually die the first death. Sin is not some kind of toxic or poisonous element that kills naturally like a lethal injection.

Otherwise, Jesus would not have had to prevent sinners from eating of the tree of life. Adam and Eve would have been punished and destroyed immediately according to their deeds. They would not have died a long lingering death. Without the plan of salvation such a slow death would have been pointless and cruel. It would have served no purpose.

I agree, though, that how we die is not as important as why Jesus will not allow us to eat of the tree of life. He knew that a minority of sinners would accept Him and benefit from the plan of salvation. So He granted the human race probationary time to decide for or against His kingdom and character.

But Jesus loves us too much to allow us to live in a sinful state during the entire time Earth is on probation. Six thousand years is too long to live in a sinful world. Thus, He denies us access to the tree of life. The result is we die gradually. The sleep of death is a blessing in disguise. The decay, disease, and deformity that affects nature and man are lessons we can learn from and are the result of the curse Jesus pronounced on account of sin.

Those wicked people who reject salvation in Jesus, who count it an unholy thing, are "worthy" of the punishment they will receive in the lake of fire at the hands of an angry and offended God. Willingly and willfully rejecting the Lamb of God is no laughing matter. It is the gravest of offenses, deserving of the most severe retribution and vengeance. Angels of God rejoice at the judgments of Jesus. Obviously there is something about it that satisfies them.

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

4T 191
The Lord will not be trifled with. Those who neglect His mercies and blessings in this day of opportunities will bring impenetrable darkness upon themselves and will be candidates for the wrath of God. Sodom and Gomorrah were visited with the curse of the Almighty for their sins and iniquities. There are those in our day who have equally abused the mercies of God and slighted His warnings. It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for those who bear the name of Christ, yet dishonor Him by their unconsecrated lives. This class are laying up for themselves a fearful retribution when God in His wrath shall visit them with His judgments. {4T 191.2}

FLB 338
To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Eze. 33:11. . . . Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." "The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Ex. 34:6, 7; Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. The severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor may be judged by the Lord's reluctance to execute justice. The nation with which He bears long, and which He will not smite until it has filled up the measure of its iniquity in God's account, will finally drink the cup of wrath unmixed with mercy. {FLB 338.5}

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 08:20 PM

John, I see degeneration as being aligned with the concept of entropy, which I see dependent upon sin. Without sin, there would be not "friction" in the system, so to speak. It would work perfectly. So there wouldn't be any degerneration or degredation.

In one of the SOP quotes I cited, it spoke of how decay came from sin, which agrees with my understanding.

One other comment regarding the John quote. When it says the spirit gives life, could that be the Spirit gives life? What I understand Jesus meant was that:
a)Knowing God is eternal life (John 17:4)
b)We need spiritual understanding in order to know God, as in a)

This is the same idea as when Jesus said that those who worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth. My understanding of this would have to do with the part of the mind that deals with spiritual things, which would have to do with what the Spirit of Prophecy calls that "higher powers of the mind." I don't understand that there is a spirit within us which exists apart from the mind.

I don't know if I'm disagreeing with what you're presenting or not. Overall, I'm right with you, as far as the big picture is concerned. I'm not sure if we might see some of the smaller details a little differently.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/10/06 10:58 PM

Tom, on page 11 of this thread I quoted several inspired insights that describe God's feelings and attitudes in regard to the punishment and death of the wicked in the lake of fire. Please explain how my view differs from the apostle John's and Sister White's in the quotes I posted. Thank you.

What you quoted from EGW was just a vision. I quoted her interpretation. Her interpretations features the following points:
a)The destruction of the wicked does not take place due to an arbitrary act of God. (In your view, it does)
b)The wicked are destroyed as the result of their own choice (In you view, they aren't; rather it's by God's choice).
c)The wicked separate themselves from God, who alone is the source of life (In your view, this doesn't happen; rather God causes them excruciating pain by forcing them to be scalded by something akin to molten lava, supernaturally keeping them alive until they have suffered enough to satisfy His thirst for vengeance).
d)The glory of God destroys the wicked (In your view, this doesn't happen.)
e)The wicked die as the inevitable result of sin. (In your view, they don't, because sin does not result in death. God's killing people is what causes death.)
f)God did not permit Satan and his host to experience the inevitable result of sin until it could be seen for what it is in the death of Christ, lest it be confused with something God was doing, which would cause an evil seed of doubt to emerge. (In your view, it is something God is doing. You do not account for the evil seed of doubt this would create if it were true)

Jesus has "no pleasure" in the death of the wicked, but when justice is finally served He will be satisfied, His wrath will be appeased, and He will rejoice that sin and death are eliminated with unsaved sinners in the lake of fire. That's how the inspired authors describe it.

This is an idea of your own mind. There is nowhere in either Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy which speaks of God's wrath being appeased. God's wrath against sin *cannot* be appeased. God will always hate it. You speak as if appeasing God's wrath is a good thing, but if you will search the Spirit of Prophecy you will see that she speaks of such only of the context of being a delusion of Satan.

Tom and John, as to what causes the first death I think it is clear in the Bible and SOP that not being able to eat regularly of the tree of life is what causes us to gradually die the first death. Sin is not some kind of toxic or poisonous element that kills naturally like a lethal injection.

I posted many statements from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy which show this idea is not correct. One from the SOP I posted three times. I'll post it a fourth time here, for your convenience. "The sin of man has brought the sure result,--decay, deformity, and death. (1SDABC 1085)" This shows it is the sin of man which brought death. No only do men die, but plants and animals as well. Why do they die?

Otherwise, Jesus would not have had to prevent sinners from eating of the tree of life.

The tree had no magical powers apart from God. God could have allowed them to eat of the tree of life and have them still die. God is more powerful than the tree He created. The issue is not the tree in and of itself, but the lesson of the tree, which is that sin results in death, and God did not wish to perpetuate sin.

Adam and Eve would have been punished and destroyed immediately according to their deeds. They would not have died a long lingering death. Without the plan of salvation such a slow death would have been pointless and cruel. It would have served no purpose.

Without the plan of salvation, the death would have been instantaneous. See FW 21, paragraph 2

I agree, though, that how we die is not as important as why Jesus will not allow us to eat of the tree of life. He knew that a minority of sinners would accept Him and benefit from the plan of salvation. So He granted the human race probationary time to decide for or against His kingdom and character.

But Jesus loves us too much to allow us to live in a sinful state during the entire time Earth is on probation. Six thousand years is too long to live in a sinful world. Thus, He denies us access to the tree of life. The result is we die gradually. The sleep of death is a blessing in disguise. The decay, disease, and deformity that affects nature and man are lessons we can learn from and are the result of the curse Jesus pronounced on account of sin.

You're making it sound as if the decay, disease and deformity that affects nature was caused by God! This is completely backwards. It is *sin* which causes decay, disease and deformity. "The sin of man has brought the sure result,--decay, deformity, and death." When Gen. 3:17 says the ground is cursed, the idea is not the God Himself made the curse happen, but that God is telling that it happened. Thus Young's literal translation has "17And to the man He said, `Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and dost eat of the tree concerning which I have charged thee, saying, Thou dost not eat of it, cursed [is] the ground on thine account; in sorrow thou dost eat of it all days of thy life," The Portuguese has "maldita é a terra por tua causa;" (cursed is the ground for your sake) not "maldita seja a terra por tua causa;" (cursed be the ground for your sake) The www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm has "being cursed." The point of this is that the language does not indicate that God caused the curse, but that God recognized it. The Spirit of Prophecy agrees:

Quote:

Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this" (Matt. 13:27, 28). All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. (2SM 288)

Posted By: DenBorg

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/11/06 01:44 AM

Quote:

There is nowhere in either Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy which speaks of God's wrath being appeased. God's wrath against sin *cannot* be appeased. God will always hate it.

You quite obviously have the wrong definition of the word "appeased".

If you are starving and you then eat a good meal, it is then said that your hunger was appeased. Another way to say it is that your hunger was satisfied.

Is this saying then that you are now OK with being starved? Does this mean that you now love and enjoy being starved and no longer hate starvation?

Neither does it mean that God now loves sin and no longer hates it.

And if God's wrath is never appeased (using the proper definition of the word), then I would suggest to you that God would then always be angry about each sin that each sinner committed and that no amount of punishment would be enough, which really goes right along with what others teach about God punishing sinners for all of eternity, keeping them alive because His wrath is never appeased.

My Bible teaches that God's wrath will be appeased. Each will receive their reward/punishment according to their own works, the sin problem will be dealt with and sin and the wicked will be destroyed, and sin will never arise again.

Furthermore, God will forget all our sins. If God's wrath is never appeased, He could never forget our sins. Yes, God's wrath will be appeased; which in no wise means that God no longer hates sin.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/11/06 04:07 AM

Quote:

John, I see degeneration as being aligned with the concept of entropy, which I see dependent upon sin. Without sin, there would be not "friction" in the system, so to speak. It would work perfectly. So there wouldn't be any degerneration or degredation.

In one of the SOP quotes I cited, it spoke of how decay came from sin, which agrees with my understanding.

One other comment regarding the John quote. When it says the spirit gives life, could that be the Spirit gives life? What I understand Jesus meant was that:
a)Knowing God is eternal life (John 17:4)
b)We need spiritual understanding in order to know God, as in a)

This is the same idea as when Jesus said that those who worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth. My understanding of this would have to do with the part of the mind that deals with spiritual things, which would have to do with what the Spirit of Prophecy calls that "higher powers of the mind." I don't understand that there is a spirit within us which exists apart from the mind.

I don't know if I'm disagreeing with what you're presenting or not. Overall, I'm right with you, as far as the big picture is concerned. I'm not sure if we might see some of the smaller details a little differently.

Tom, what you are saying is right in line with what I am saying. What I am pointing out is not contrary to what you are saying but rather amplifying it.

This is the key to understand rightly the word “by itself”. "By itself" would mean "not upheld by God" There is a tendency to think of heavenly physical things as having eternal life inherently. If eternal life were inherently in physics it would cease to be virtue. The primary point is that in heaven all living things live by the spirit and not vice-versa. That is to say all thing receive life from God on an ongoing basis. In stating that sin causes degeneration (which is true) we are also saying that righteousness is life; meaning it is the spirit that gives life. No physics of itself has life eternal. Since sin works death, and righteousness works life, therefore the body is made subject to it. Life eternal is substanced in the spirit which means God. It is by spirit that the physics gets life.

Is that clearer.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/11/06 06:12 AM

Yes, that helped. I think you are saying the same thing as I have said (in quoting Ellen White) that the laws of nature are not self-acting. It takes active participation on the part of God (more than we can imagine) to make things work.

Does "spirit" mean "the higher powers of the mind that deal with spiritual things"?

I agree with the statement that righteousness is life. That's just another way of saying that to know God is eternal life. Also the end of the law is righteousness, and Christ is the end of the law, which is eternal life. These things all go together.

Another way of stating what you've said in relation to man's setting up his own justice rather than accepting the justice of God is:

Quote:

And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. (John 9:39-41)

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/11/06 06:31 AM

You quite obviously have the wrong definition of the word "appeased".

I see that appease means: "pacify: cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of" also "propitiate: make peace with." When one speaks of appeasing the wrath of God, it is this last one that particularly applies, don't you agree?

Does God make peace with sin? I don't think so. Do you?

If you are starving and you then eat a good meal, it is then said that your hunger was appeased. Another way to say it is that your hunger was satisfied.

Is this saying then that you are now OK with being starved? Does this mean that you now love and enjoy being starved and no longer hate starvation?

Neither does it mean that God now loves sin and no longer hates it.

And if God's wrath is never appeased (using the proper definition of the word), then I would suggest to you that God would then always be angry about each sin that each sinner committed and that no amount of punishment would be enough, which really goes right along with what others teach about God punishing sinners for all of eternity, keeping them alive because His wrath is never appeased.

This is scratching where it doesn't itch. God doesn't punish sin arbitrarily, as if it needed punishment for the sake of being punished. Sin results in death. That *is* the punishment.

My Bible teaches that God's wrath will be appeased.

The Bible never says that. Neither does the Spirit of Prophecy. As I pointed out, the Spirit of Prophecy only speaks of appeasing God's wrath in a negative sense, as in a delusion of Satan. Look through her writings and you'll see this. As for the Bible, it doesn't speak of appeasing God's wrath at all.

Each will receive their reward/punishment according to their own works, the sin problem will be dealt with and sin and the wicked will be destroyed, and sin will never arise again.

Sure. Sin will result in death, just as God said. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with appeasing God's wrath, which has to do with propitiation. God's wrath against sin will never be propitiated.

Furthermore, God will forget all our sins. If God's wrath is never appeased, He could never forget our sins.

Two points. First of all, when it speaks of God's not remembering our sins, this is not in the sense of a loss of memory. It means that He will not bring them up. Once everyone has made a decision for our against Jesus Christ, there would be no more purpose for God to remember sin. Those who have chosen Christ have been forgiven. Those who refuse Christ will die, for "they that hate me love death."

Yes, God's wrath will be appeased;

No, God will never be at peace with sin.

which in no wise means that God no longer hates sin.
The idea I was sharing is not original to me. I borrowed the idea form George Fifield, a contemporary of Ellen White, who said,

Quote:

But this idea of atonement, or reconciliation, separates entirely between the Father and the Son, making the Father so stern and hard that He demands his full “pound of flesh,” so to speak, and the Son so kind, so good, that He gives it out of His own heart that we may be set free. Thus instead of Christ revealing the Father, the two are opposite—entirely separated.

But no, “He that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father.” If you want to know how God feels towards sin, notice how Christ hated sin. If you want to know how God feels toward the sinner, notice how Christ loved the sinner.

God’s wrath burns eternally against sin, and never will be appeased; but it will consume the sinner in the end.

Posted By: DenBorg

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/11/06 04:34 PM

Quote:

I see that appease means: "pacify: cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of" also "propitiate: make peace with." When one speaks of appeasing the wrath of God, it is this last one that particularly applies, don't you agree?

No, I don't agree with the foreign meaning you assign to the word. To make peace with does not mean that you are in favor of the original problem, whether it be sin or hunger or whatever. When you eat a meal, you are made at peace. You are at peace with your hunger. Why? Because you now love being starved? Or is it because the problem was dealt with and is a problem no more?! Isn't it because your hunger problem has been dealt with, and is no longer a problem?

According to your words, it would mean that you are now in favor of being starved; but that does not make any sense at all!

You mentioned that a synonym of "appease" is "propitiate". That is correct. But the meaning you give it is not correct. Propitiate does not mean "peaceful alliance", and neither does "appease". 1 John 4:10 tells us that God gave us His Son Christ Jesus to be the propitiation of sin. Since the word propitiate is used in this verse, a word that you are objecting to, are you suggesting to us that this verse is therefore saying that Christ caused the Father to come into a peaceful alliance with sin and to no longer hate sin?

You cannot assign a foreign meaning to a word, or twist what was said out of context, and then argue that this is what the person is saying, and then tell that person he or she is wrong for saying it.

Quote:

Does God make peace with sin? I don't think so. Do you?

Not in the sense in which you are trying to press it into. You are saying that "appeasement" is a "peaceful alliance", but that is not at all what the word means. But the sin problem will be dealt with, finally and completely, and it will not be a problem any more because sin will be stamped out forever and never arise again. Don't you agree?

Or are you honestly trying to claim that the original poster was claiming that God will make a peaceful alliance with sin and change His mind such that He is in favor of sin?

Come on now. Let's not build up straw men to knock down. The original poster never suggested any such thing as you are accusing! Must we try to make others say something they never said, just so we have something to argue about? Talk about scratching where it doesn't itch!

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/11/06 05:50 PM

Quote:
I see that appease means: "pacify: cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of" also "propitiate: make peace with." When one speaks of appeasing the wrath of God, it is this last one that particularly applies, don't you agree?

No, I don't agree with the foreign meaning you assign to the word.

I didn't make up the meanings I posted. I looked them up. They weren't mine.

To make peace with does not mean that you are in favor of the original problem, whether it be sin or hunger or whatever. When you eat a meal, you are made at peace. You are at peace with your hunger. Why? Because you now love being starved? Or is it because the problem was dealt with and is a problem no more?! Isn't it because your hunger problem has been dealt with, and is no longer a problem?

According to your words, it would mean that you are now in favor of being starved; but that does not make any sense at all!

Why are you equating hunger with the sin problem? Hunger is a transitory condition. The sin problem is not. I don't think the analogy you are suggesting fits very well.

You mentioned that a synonym of "appease" is "propitiate". That is correct. But the meaning you give it is not correct. Propitiate does not mean "peaceful alliance", and neither does "appease". 1 John 4:10 tells us that God gave us His Son Christ Jesus to be the propitiation of sin. Since the word propitiate is used in this verse, a word that you are objecting to, are you suggesting to us that this verse is therefore saying that Christ caused the Father to come into a peaceful alliance with sin and to no longer hate sin?

That's not the problem. The problem is that we are not at peace with God. God gave His Son for us to bring us back to Him.

Quote:

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of[f] your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. (Col. 1:19-23)

Through the cross we are reconciled to God. The propitiation was for us, not for God. Quoting from E. J. Waggoner:

Quote:

A Propitiation. A propitiation is a sacrifice. The statement then is simply that Christ is set forth to be a sacrifice for the remission of our sins. "Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:26. Of course the idea of a propitiation or sacrifice is that there is wrath to be appeased. But take particular notice that it is we who require the sacrifice, and not God. He provides the sacrifice. The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible.

It is the height of absurdity to say that God is so angry with men that he will not forgive them unless something is provided to appease his wrath, and that therefore he himself offers the gift to himself, by which he is appeased. (Waggoner on Romans)

Also, to be clear, what I am objecting to is the idea that God's wrath is appeased.

You cannot assign a foreign meaning to a word, or twist what was said out of context, and then argue that this is what the person is saying, and then tell that person he or she is wrong for saying it.

This is not at all what I'm doing. Here's what I'm objecting to:

Quote:

Jesus has "no pleasure" in the death of the wicked, but when justice is finally served He will be satisfied, His wrath will be appeased, and He will rejoice that sin and death are eliminated with unsaved sinners in the lake of fire. That's how the inspired authors describe it.

Here the poster claimed that God's wrath will be appeased, and this is what inspired writers say. But nowhere does the Bible speak of God's wrath being appeased, and when the Spirit of Prophecy speaks of it, she uses the phrase only in a negative sense, as in a delusion of Satan. This has nothing to do with me ascribing meanings to words. Regardless of the meaning of "appeaseed" what I am objecting to would still be true. Correct?

Quote:
Does God make peace with sin? I don't think so. Do you?

Not in the sense in which you are trying to press it into. You are saying that "appeasement" is a "peaceful alliance", but that is not at all what the word means.

The first definintion I quoted said to appease was to pacify. To pacify means to make peace, coming from the Latin pax, which means "peace." Webster's gives "appease" and "propitiate" as synonymns to "pacify," which again verifies that the meaning of "appease" involves making peace.

But the sin problem will be dealt with, finally and completely, and it will not be a problem any more because sin will be stamped out forever and never arise again. Don't you agree?

Or are you honestly trying to claim that the original poster was claiming that God will make a peaceful alliance with sin and change His mind such that He is in favor of sin?

To say that God's wrath is appeased means that God was angry, and something happened so that He is no longer angry. I think the original poster had in mind that God was angry, but vented His anger against the wicked by punishing them with excruciating pain in molten lava, or something equivalent, until His wrath was appeased, "satifying His thirst for vengeance" is the way he puts it.

I disagree with the idea that God was angry at sinners to start with. God's anger is directed at sin, not sinners, and that anger will never cease. This was my point. I was not arguing that the original poster was thinking that God will come to be at peace with sin, but that he misunderstood what God's wrath was about. I believe Fifield had the correct understanding: "God’s wrath burns eternally against sin, and never will be appeased; but it will consume the sinner in the end."

Come on now. Let's not build up straw men to knock down. The original poster never suggested any such thing as you are accusing! Must we try to make others say something they never said, just so we have something to argue about? Talk about scratching where it doesn't itch!

You've misunderstood my point. I think I've been clear. I'm not attempting to do what you are saying. If you think I've been unclear, perhaps you could quote something I've written.

To summarize, my original point is that is not correct to say that God's wrath is appeased in the destruction of the wicked. This idea is not to be found in Scripture at all, and when the Spirit of Prophecy speaks of appeasing God's wrath, it's always in a negative sense, as in a delusion of Satan.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/11/06 07:27 PM

Tom, Sister White is the one who said God's wrath will be appeased when the wicked are punished and destroyed in the lake of fire.

SR 388
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}

1SG 193
He lets him be as though he had not been; while the master has to suffer the seven last plagues, and then come up in the second resurrection, and suffer the second, most awful death. Then the wrath of God will be appeased. {1SG 193.1}

EW 51
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}

Deuteronomy
32:41 If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.
32:42 I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; [and that] with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.
32:43 Rejoice, O ye nations, [with] his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, [and] to his people.

Psalm
149:5 Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds.
149:6 [Let] the high [praises] of God [be] in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand;
149:7 To execute vengeance upon the heathen, [and] punishments upon the people;
149:8 To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
149:9 To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.

Nahum
1:2 God [is] jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and [is] furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth [wrath] for his enemies.

2 Thessalonians
1:6 Seeing [it is] a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/11/06 08:33 PM

Tom, Sister White is the one who said God's wrath will be appeased when the wicked are punished and destroyed in the lake of fire.

SR 388
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}

1SG 193
He lets him be as though he had not been; while the master has to suffer the seven last plagues, and then come up in the second resurrection, and suffer the second, most awful death. Then the wrath of God will be appeased. {1SG 193.1}

EW 51
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}

You're right! Mea culpa. I did my search on "God appease wrath" and the results were as I stated. I should have tried "God appeased wrath" as well.

Deuteronomy
32:41 If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.
32:42 I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; [and that] with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.
32:43 Rejoice, O ye nations, [with] his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, [and] to his people.

Psalm
149:5 Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds.
149:6 [Let] the high [praises] of God [be] in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand;
149:7 To execute vengeance upon the heathen, [and] punishments upon the people;
149:8 To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
149:9 To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.

Nahum
1:2 God [is] jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and [is] furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth [wrath] for his enemies.

2 Thessalonians
1:6 Seeing [it is] a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

This still leaves the question as to what the wrath of God means. I understand the wrath of God to mean that God gives one up to suffer the results of the choices made. For example:

Quote:

"Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?
And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods." (Deut 31:17, 18)

We see here that God's anger is expressed by His forsaking and hiding His face from those He is "angry" at. When He forsakes or hides His face, bad things happen. Ellen White talks about this in the first chapter of the Great Controversy which discusses the destruction of Jerusalem.

Quote:

The hour of hope and pardon was fast passing; the cup of God's long-deferred wrath was almost full. The cloud that had been gathering through ages of apostasy and rebellion, now black with woe, was about to burst upon a guilty people;...Looking down the ages, He saw the covenant people scattered in every land, "like wrecks on a desert shore." In the temporal retribution about to fall upon her children, He saw but the first draft from that cup of wrath which at the final judgment she must drain to its dregs. Divine pity, yearning love, found utterance in the mournful words: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" O that thou, a nation favored above every other, hadst known the time of thy visitation, and the things that belong unto thy peace! I have stayed the angel of justice, I have called thee to repentance, but in vain. It is not merely servants, delegates, and prophets, whom thou hast refused and rejected, but the Holy One of Israel, thy Redeemer. If thou art destroyed, thou alone art responsible. "Ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life." Matthew 23:37; John 5:40....Because of her sins, wrath had been denounced against Jerusalem, and her stubborn unbelief rendered her doom certain....

How does explain the meaning of God's wrath?

Quote:

The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. (emphasis mine)

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/11/06 08:38 PM

Note to Denborg. MM demonstrated that I was incorrect in stating the EGW did not speak of appeasing God's wrath, except in a negative sense. He did a better search than I did. So please disregard the assertions in my posts to you related to this point.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/12/06 08:36 AM

Tom, please read this whole post slowly, carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully. Don't make rash assumptions and truly try to understand what I am saying here. Please read it over 7 times before you come to any conclusions.

Why the strong rhetoric here? I've not spoken strongly to you, have I? If so, I apologize. Please tone down the rhetoric. Isn't our goal to study together, to learn from one another?

Quote:
I didn't make up the meanings I posted. I looked them up. They weren't mine.

But it is you, not Webster, who is suggesting that "to appease" means to change one's mind about how they feel about something.

I wrote this:

Quote:

You quite obviously have the wrong definition of the word "appeased".

I see that appease means: "pacify: cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of" also "propitiate: make peace with." When one speaks of appeasing the wrath of God, it is this last one that particularly applies, don't you agree?

Where did I write that "to appease" means to change one's mind about how they feel about something?

You claim that appeasing God's wrath to sin would mean that God suddenly is in favor of sin, that He would then think sin is a good thing. But that is not what the word nor its synonyms means, neither does Webster define it as such. That is your personal assertion.

You've mistated what I said. I didn't say God would then think sin is a good thing. Also what I wrote was not my personal assertion. As I stated, the idea I shared was NOT my own. I got it from George Fifield, whom I quoted twice.

Quote:
Why are you equating hunger with the sin problem? Hunger is a transitory condition. The sin problem is not. I don't think the analogy you are suggesting fits very well.

I have NEVER equated hunger with the sin problem. So tell me, why would you accuse me of saying any such thing?!

You wrote the following:

Quote:

No, I don't agree with the foreign meaning you assign to the word. To make peace with does not mean that you are in favor of the original problem, whether it be sin or hunger or whatever. When you eat a meal, you are made at peace. You are at peace with your hunger. Why? Because you now love being starved? Or is it because the problem was dealt with and is a problem no more?! Isn't it because your hunger problem has been dealt with, and is no longer a problem?

According to your words, it would mean that you are now in favor of being starved; but that does not make any sense at all!

You repeated this argument in the next post. Instead of writing "equating hunger with the sin problem" it would have been more accurate for me to have written "treating the problem of hunger in a similar way to the sin problem" although I would think that my meaning was clear. I immediately followed this sentence with "Hunger is a transitory condition. The sin problem is not. I don't think the analogy you are suggesting fits very well." This seems quite clear to me. I apologize if you found it unclear and didn't understand what I was saying. I was not suggesting you think hunger and sin are the same. I was suggesting that your analogy didn't fit well because hunger is a transitory issue. After one eats, one gets hungry again. Once the sin problem is taken care of, it is gone forever. That's why the analogy doesn't fit. I should have made that clearer.

You know full well, as does everyone else, that I was using a very common and relatable expression, that everyone would readily understand, to illustrate both the usage and meaning of the word "appease". A phrase that most everyone has heard before. I never said hunger and the sin problem were the same thing. You error in saying that I did.

I think if you would have looked at the argument, you would have seen what I was saying.

According to your definition of the word, to appease one's hunger would mean that the person is in favor of being starved; that they changed their mind and now prefer to be starved over being fed.

I don't follow you here. To appease one's hunger would first of all would suggest a different meaning to the word "appease" than the ones I quoted. The meaning "sooth" would fit both hunger and wrath well. To sooth one's hunger does not mean one is in favor of starving, but rather that one is no longer hungry. Similarly to sooth one's wrath would mean not that one is in favor of the thing one was angry at, but that one's anger had been soothed. I was suggesting (actually quoting from Fifield) that God's wrath against sin would never be sootherd.

According to Webster, however, "appease" means that the hunger problem was resolved. The demands of hunger were met. The person is no longer hungry, they are at peace, their hunger was pacified. All those words are saying the same thing, and none suggest that the person now enjoys being starved and does not want to be fed.

Quote:
The propitiation was for us, not for God. Quoting from E. J. Waggoner

The propitiation was for our sin. Quoting from God's Holy Word:

Quote:
"... to make propitiation for the sins ..." - Hebrews 2:17

"He Himself is the propitiation for our sins" - 1 John 2:2

"In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." - 1 John 4:10

This is correct. The propitiation was for our sins, to reconcile us to God. It was not, as Waggoner pointed out, to propitiate God, but to propitiate us.

Quote:
I'm not attempting to do what you are saying. If you think I've been unclear, perhaps you could quote something I've written.

Here is the quote:

Quote:
There is nowhere in either Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy which speaks of God's wrath being appeased. God's wrath against sin *cannot* be appeased. God will always hate it.

When I wrote, "I'm not attempting to do what you are saying" I was referring to how you interpreted my comments towards MM. You thought I was trying to say that he was saying that God would make a peaceful alliance with sin. I've never made the argument that MM had that in mind. I explained very clearly what I thought MM's thoughts were, and what my intentions were regarding his post.

Here is the quote where you, in response to another's comments, clearly state that for God's wrath against sin to be appeased means that God would no longer hate sin. It is clear to me that you are claiming that this is what the original poster meant.

I explained to you what I thought the original poster meant. Regarding what I wrote, I got the idea from Fifield, who wrote:

Quote:

God’s wrath burns eternally against sin, and never will be appeased; but it will consume the sinner in the end.

As I have clearly shown twice now, that is not at all the meaning of the word "appease", not even in the Webster Dictionary.

I think Fifield's command of the English language was fine.

Quote:
This is not at all what I'm doing. Here's what I'm objecting to:

Quote:
Jesus has "no pleasure" in the death of the wicked, but when justice is finally served He will be satisfied, His wrath will be appeased, and He will rejoice that sin and death are eliminated with unsaved sinners in the lake of fire. That's how the inspired authors describe it.

I am finding it hard to understand why you object to the comment above.

MM and I have exchanged many posts on this topic, which you may not be aware of. MM's idea is this:

Quote:

When the wicked are resurrected, God will cast them into a lake of fire, something like molten lava, which He will keep them supernaturally alive to suffer by being scalded, or boiled, until they pay by physical suffering for each sin they have committed. The righteous who witness this will be rejoice to see this happen, even when it involves their children or other loved ones. Holy angels who witness the suffering of the wicked will rejoice. God will rejoice in the suffering of our loved ones.

I know that this was his thinking in writing the above, because he has stated as much many times. So given the history of our former conversations, I knew this thinking was behind the above quote, so it was not so much the above quote I was reacting to in and of itself, but the whole picture, which is something I may have been aware of that you weren't.

I think your problem might be that you are confusing the phrase "God's wrath against sin" with the phrase "God's wrath against sinners". There is a very significant and important difference! More on that coming up.

Quote:
To say that God's wrath is appeased means that God was angry, and something happened so that He is no longer angry.

Yes, and I believe it is very Biblical. God is angry at something, and that something is sin. Don't you agree?

Once sin and death is destroyed, sin and death are destroyed, meaning they no longer exist. How can God be angry at something that no longer exists? He still hates the idea of sin, but He has taken sufficient measures to ensure that sin will never pop up again. He has promised us that, and you can take that promise to the bank.

I think we're saying the same thing here. When Fifeld wrote "God’s wrath burns eternally against sin, and never will be appeased." he clearly had in mind the idea of sin, and I mean the same thing.

On that day, sin will be eliminated, and I certainly agree that this is something to rejoice over. It is just sad that the wicked so chose to be destroyed with sin. Remember, it is written that hell was not made for us.

I agree with this.

Remember Tom, God hates sin but loves the sinner. I believe He even loves Satan, and He has done everything possible to bring Satan back to Him, but Satan was not willing. Likewise, the wicked at the end also was not willing despite God doing all He could to save them.

Amen!

Remember, it is God's wrath against sin, not against sinners. You seem to wrongfully assume or ascribe that whenever "God's wrath" is mentioned, that it is wrath against the person instead of against the sin.

No, I agree with this. The only difference I see in what I was saying and what you are saying is semantical. In saying "God's wrath against sin will never end" I meant the same thing as when you say that God's wrath against the idea of sin will never end. As you point out, sin will no longer exist, so that meaning from both Fifield and myself should be clear I think.

The idea that Fifield was arguing against was the idea that God was so angry that He had to vent it against someone in order for it to be appeased. To say that God's anger is appeased when sin will have finally ceased to work its deadly woe is right on. I'm going to stop here and answer the rest later, as it's quite late and this is already long.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/12/06 04:38 PM

Someone, perhaps you, I don't remember, seem to be saying that the wages of sin being death is not because of God's government, but it's that way and God has no control over it. Perhaps that isn't worded the best to convey what I am trying to say, but it's almost as God saying, "Sorry guys! I hate to rain on your parade, but sin causes death. But it wasn't My idea, and if it were up to Me it would be different."

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. My thought, which I've often shared, is that sin is based on selfieshness, which must, by its very nature, result in suffering, misery, pain, and eventually death. There's no reason for God to want things to be different, because there's no way that selfishness could lead to any other result, nor any reason why God would want it to.

I don't see any other way for there to be order in the universe.

Nor do I. Sin must result in misery, suffering, pain, and eventually death.

You and I see firsthand the disorder that sin brings. God is a God of order, and it is written that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. The part in bold is straight from the Bible.

Yes, certainly. I've quoted Fifield's thoughts on this, with which I agree. If you haven't seen them, and you're interested, I'll requote them.

God is angry. He is angry at sin, not at the sinner. God will rejoice in the destruction of sin, but not in the destuction of sinners.

Right!

In fact, the Bible calls it the "strange act of God". The Bible tells us that hell was not prepared for us; therefore, anyone who ends up there did so by their own choices, and they will be destroyed, not because God takes pleasure in it; neither because that is what He wants. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Amen!

Quote:
To summarize, my original point is that is not correct to say that God's wrath is appeased in the destruction of the wicked.

I agree with you here. But it is correct to say that God's wrath is appeased in the destruction of sin. It was sin that was the object of God's wrath to begin with, and it is the destruction of sin that appeases His wrath. Sin, at that point, ceases to exist and there is nothing to be angry about. His wrath is appeased (but as clearly explained above and in my previous post, this in no wise means that God now loves sin).

But the destruction of the wicked is necessary in order for sin to be destroyed, because they stubbornly hang onto their sin despite all that God did to save them from it. Without their destruction, sin would perpetuate. Their destruction is not what God wants, which is why the Bible describes their destruction as God's strange act.

I mostly agree with this. Please note the following from DA 108

Quote:

To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them....The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.

Please note that the same thing which gives life to the righteous is what slays the wicked. The light of the glory of God is simply the truth about His character (light=truth; God's glory is His character). As Jesus said, to know God is eternal life. So when God reveals Himself to the righteous, they receive life, but the same revelation results in death for the wicked.

There is no danger in sin being perpetuated because sin cannot exist except by the grace of God, which involves His putting off revealing Himself. There will come a time when God will be fully revealed to all, and when that happens sin can no longer exist.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/12/06 05:57 PM

John B, I had a moment of clarity, which I'll share with you, which made me think, "Hey! This is just what John says."

I was thinking about how sin causes us to believe things which are not true about God, and how that would tie into unbelief and condemnation. Jesus in John 3, just after the most famous verse, said that he that believes not is condemned already. I've thought for a long time that this meant more than simply not believing the truth. The way I had been thinking of it was in terms of refusling to believe the Gospel, the point being that the "not believing" is an active event, not a passive one. The moment of clarity is that it's not just a matter of refusing to believe the Gospel, but of believing something false which is not the Gospel; the current system of belief, or paradigm, must be replaced. And this is what made me think of you

.

This seems to me to be very much along the lines of what you have been sharing, when you say that we need to let go of our system of justice and accept God's. Sin causes us to see things in a false way, creating a false paradigm. Christ reveals the truth. When we perceive the truth, we need to let go our old paradigm, and receive the new, which is to renounce our unbelief (believing a lie) and embrace faith (believing and laying hold of the truth which Christ presented).

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/12/06 07:27 PM

Tom, when sharing my view of the wrath of God I would prefer it if you would quote me from now on rather than your description of it. Thank you. Again, here is my view:

Jesus has "no pleasure" in the punishment and final death of the wicked, but when justice is finally served He will be satisfied, His wrath will be appeased. The righteous throughout the Lord's far flung universe will rejoice with Jesus when sin and sinners are punished and destroyed and forever eradicated in the lake of fire.

I believe this view is supported by the following inspired insights:

EW 294
They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

GC 673
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, root and branch--Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. {GC 673.1}

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

2 Peter
3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
3:11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,
3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Posted By: Darius

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/12/06 07:42 PM

MM, where do you get the idea from that Jesus has wrath to be appeased?

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/13/06 03:16 AM

Quote:

John B, I had a moment of clarity, which I'll share with you, which made me think, "Hey! This is just what John says."

I was thinking about how sin causes us to believe things which are not true about God, and how that would tie into unbelief and condemnation. Jesus in John 3, just after the most famous verse, said that he that believes not is condemned already. I've thought for a long time that this meant more than simply not believing the truth. The way I had been thinking of it was in terms of refusling to believe the Gospel, the point being that the "not believing" is an active event, not a passive one. The moment of clarity is that it's not just a matter of refusing to believe the Gospel, but of believing something false which is not the Gospel; the current system of belief, or paradigm, must be replaced. And this is what made me think of you .

This seems to me to be very much along the lines of what you have been sharing, when you say that we need to let go of our system of justice and accept God's. Sin causes us to see things in a false way, creating a false paradigm. Christ reveals the truth. When we perceive the truth, we need to let go our old paradigm, and receive the new, which is to renounce our unbelief (believing a lie) and embrace faith (believing and laying hold of the truth which Christ presented).

Yes Tom, the lights are on

Hallelujah
This is also what it means about our righteousness vs. his righteousness. It’s our concept of right and wrong as opposed to his. When Christ said: seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; that is what he meant. This also has to do with whether we believe him or ourselves; His judgment or our judgment.
The controversy between good and evil is the controversy between two righteous-nesses;
The one is life everlasting; the other brings forth death.

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/13/06 03:26 AM

Just thought I would mention this.

There is nothing weightier than this to bring about the needed paradigm shift.

When one executes all the righteousness that one held to be God’s, and then discovers themselves to have crucified the Lord of Glory; That calls for a change of heart.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/13/06 08:34 AM

Yes, but if we think we see, and refuse to acknowledge our blindness, our sin remains.

I've always liked what you've said about our righteousness vs. God's righteousness. In fact, I think we've discussed this at some length, including discussing this site, sharktacos.com/God/cross_intro.shtml, which talks about the same concept in terms of "justice" (which is the same word in the Greek as "righteousness").

I think explaining things in terms of a paradigm shift is a good place to start. The idea of exchanging our righteousness for God's is a difficult concept to grasp. What comes to most people's minds is the idea of work-righteousness, that we need to stop trying to work our way to heaven, and accept the righteousness of Christ by faith. Of course, this is involved, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. Our righteousness encompasses not just our efforts to gain God's favor, but our entire frame of reference; everything we think, the way we perceive things, all this must be exchanged for God's righteousness, which also encompasses not just the works of righteousness which Christ performed in God's name, but God's way of thinking, His way of perceiving things, His entire frame of reference.

Posted By: Charity

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/14/06 01:13 AM

I've always understood John to be saying what you posted above, but I have to confess, I'm still not clear on what it implies to John and you. I thought the standards of Christianity are clearly set out in the Ten Commandments which is summarized in the golden rule so far as our relationship with each other go, that having confessed and repented of sins and having submitted to the Lordship of Christ, out of love to God, we 'go and sin no more'. That's how we accept God's righteousness and the paradigm shift is the work of the Holy Spirit at the new birth and continuing on in the believer’s life. . . But accepting His judgement? That seems to mean something special to John that I'm not clear on.

One thing that I think should be said here if it hasn’t been already is that redemption is needed because of sin. We are enslaved to it and it will destroy us now and eternally. Redemption is redemption from the captivity of Satan’s domains. The Passover was a yearly reminder and illustration of the liberation made possible through the life and death of Christ. Just as Israel was without hope and completely enslaved, the same is true of men and women prior to the intervention of Christ. This is a sublime truth and God has witnessed to it in many ways but as in all spiritual matters, it requires us to exercise a measure of faith in order to accept it. “For without faith it is impossible to please Him”. Those who come to God must believe He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him. We have to come on His terms. He knows what is best for us and we have to trust Him to both diagnose the problem and to provide the remedy.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/14/06 05:39 AM

Here's something I wrote about vengeance Mark. Perhaps this will help by way of understanding what John and I have in mind. (I'm pretty sure John will agree with what I've written here. If not, I invite him to speak up.)

The rest of the text shows the vengeance of God, how it is that God repays:

19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Please note that God is not asking us to do anything other than what He does. Christ overcame evil with good. He turned the other cheek, walked the second mile. God is simply asking us to be like Him.

A distorted understanding of this text would be "I'd really like to bash this guy, but I'm supposed to leave vengeance with God, so I'll control myself and let God bash him."

Regarding understanding God's justice as violence, it's certainly true that this would be a bad characterization of it. God's justice is setting things right:

Quote:

18 Therefore the LORD will wait, that He may be gracious to you; And therefore He will be exalted, that He may have mercy on you. For the LORD is a God of justice; Blessed are all those who wait for Him. (Isa. 30:18)

God longs to be gracious and merciful to us because He is a God of justice. Justice is setting things right, and the way God does this is through grace and mercy.

Quote:

“Thus says the LORD of hosts:

‘ Execute true justice,
Show mercy and compassion
Everyone to his brother. (Zech. 7:9)

God's justice is manifest by mercy and compassion, whether by God Himself or by us.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/14/06 03:54 PM

John B wrote:
Here is some more scripture James, some of the clearest scripture on the fact that sin causes death is found in Romans 7, but by no means the only place.
Unquote.

Tom E. wrote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, are our death connected to God taking out our life or not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James, if we wish to understand God's character, we should study the life and character of Jesus Christ. When Jesus was urged to take life, how did He respond?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? 55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9:54-56)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God is not the author of death. Death is intrinsic to sin. You can't have sin without death.

Unquote.

If sin that causes death, does it means that it is sin that takes the life out of our bodies and we become death bodies or corpses?

How life is created in Adam?
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man becomes a living soul.” – Genesis 2:7

So, the breath of life is “the Source of our life”, without it we are back into dust of the ground. And we knew that “the breath of life” is the Spirit of God.

Psalm 104:30 “When you send your Spirit they are created…..”
Psalm 104:29 “……………….., when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust.”

Life is the body + the Spirit of God that gives life, death is the body without the spirit of God.
What happen with a death man? “And the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” – Ecclesiastes 12:7.

It’s very clear to me, that it is not sin that kills us; sin causes death but it is not sin that takes away the life of our bodies. It is God himself that takes the life from our bodies at the time he thinks is right.

God is the life giver and no one might take it away from us except God himself.

He has a good reason to “kill” us, our sins.

In His love

James S

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/14/06 05:38 PM

JS - It’s very clear to me, that it is not sin that kills us; sin causes death but it is not sin that takes away the life of our bodies. It is God himself that takes the life from our bodies at the time he thinks is right.

James, I believe it is more accurate to say Jesus withdraws the breath of life because we refuse to rely on Him to cease sinning – the result is we die. Sinning, in and of itself, does not cause us to die the second death. Jesus must resurrect the wicked in order to punish and destroy them. For some reason this makes sense to God. It is true, however, that sinful choices can lead to us dying the first death, though it is not necessarily inevitable.

For example, choosing to ingest poison usually results in the first death, that is, if Jesus decides not to overrule the normal effects of poison, which, again, leads me to believe the reason we die the first death is because Jesus chooses not to override the natural course of things, the process of dying due to the fact we are forbidden to eat of the tree of life and because there are so many things that cause death living in a world full of sin (war, crime, disease, accidents, etc).

People who object to these views of death and dying and punishment have a hard time explaining why Jesus thinks it’s necessary to resurrect the wicked.

1. Why resurrect the wicked if they’re already dead?

2. If death is wages of sin why not leave them dead?

3. If Jesus does not punish the wicked according to their sinfulness with literal fire and brimstone, as some have suggested, why not just leave them dead?

4. What purpose does it serve to resurrect them if, according to some people, all they do is suffer in the presence of God’s glory?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/14/06 05:48 PM

Tom, another way of looking at Romans 12:19-21 is in light of the following passage:

Revelation
14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud [one] sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
14:15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
14:16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
14:17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
14:18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
14:19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast [it] into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
14:20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand [and] six hundred furlongs.

The angel in verse 18 represents the prayers of the saints when probation closes. They are pleading with Jesus to destroy the wicked. They are lost beyond hope and the righteous pray to Jesus to end their lives. It does not occur to them to assist Jesus in destroying them. They understand that Jesus is the only one who has the right to exact vengeance on the wicked. In response to this vengeance the holy angels declare:

Revelation
16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/14/06 09:59 PM

James, when you speak of death, it would be good if you would clarify which death you mean, the first or the second. When the Scripture speaks of sin resulting in death, the primary meaning is the second death. You will notice that Christ refers to the first death as "sleep".

Because of sin, the law of entropy came into effect. This causes the breakdown of all systems, including our own bodies. Not just human beings die, but everything runs down, without exception, even mighty stars. This is not something which God caused to happen, but was the result of an aberant element being added into things. As Christ said, "an enemy has done this." The Spirit of Prophecy has an elegant explanation of this idea:

Quote:

Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this" (Matt. 13:27, 28). All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. (2SM 288)

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/14/06 10:08 PM

Quote:

God is the life giver and no one might take it away from us except God himself.

He has a good reason to “kill” us, our sins.

This is a fundamental issue to consider, and has wide sweeping implications as to how we view God's character. If we view death as happening because of actions on God's part, then He is responsible for all death. When our loved one's die, and we ask why, the response is because God thought it best. We are led to view God as one who plans for the incidents in our life which most cause us pain.

But when one looks at the Gospels, this is not the picture we see when we look at Jesus Christ. How many times did Jesus say that God was responsible for any bad thing, including the sickness He was healing someone of, or some death which befell someone? Never. Christ always presented His work as one of fighting the enemy. He viewed Satan as the author of sin, sickness and death, *not* His Father. We should view things the same way Christ did.

Another problem with viewing God as causing death is that it leads us to view Him with fear. If we don't do what He says, He will kill us. This can never lead to the type of relationship Christ had with His Father.

Another problem is that it puts the Father at cross purposes with His Son. We do not see Christ taking anyone's life away. Again and again Christ said He came not to destroy, or to condemn, or to judge, but to save lives.

This is the work of God. To save. Destruction comes from sin, and God seeks to save us from our sin, that we not be destroyed by it. It's like a deadly virus which must be removed from our system. *It* is what we must fear, not God. The fear of God (in the sense of being afraid, not of respect) leads to the religion of the Phrarisees, who worshipped God with their lips, but their hearts were far from Him, and when He came to dwell amongst them, they wanting nothing more than to kill Him.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/14/06 10:21 PM

MM, Jesus is not schitzophrenic! He has only one way of acting, which is like He acted while here amongst us. *Everything* that we can know about God was demonstrated by Him while He lived amongst us. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If you wish to give some interpretation to Rev. 14, or any other passage, it must be rejected if you cannot produce an example from the life of Christ was corroborates the suggested interpretation.

What the passage in Romans 12 shows is that God's vengeance is accomplished not by eye for eye or tooth for tooth, but by turning the other cheek and walking the second mile.

The Spirit of Prophecy speaks of Rev. 14 like this:

Quote:

I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan's decided attacks upon them. It is Satan's power that is at work at sea and on land, bringing calamity and distress, and sweeping off multitudes to make sure of his prey. And storm and tempest both by sea and land will be, for Satan has come down in great wrath. He is at work. He knows his time is short and, if he is not restrained, we shall see more terrible manifestations of his power than we have ever dreamed of. {14MR 3.1}

She also repeats these principles in the Great Controversy:

Quote:

The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty.

The Saviour's prophecy concerning the visitation of judgments upon Jerusalem is to have another fulfillment, of which that terrible desolation was but a faint shadow. In the fate of the chosen city we may behold the doom of a world that has rejected God's mercy and trampled upon His law. (GC 36)

From this we see that the same principles at work in the destruction of Jerusalem will be at work during the time of trouble. What were these principles?

Quote:

The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown. Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control. (GC 36, 37)

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 02:39 AM

Quote:

John B wrote:
Here is some more scripture James, some of the clearest scripture on the fact that sin causes death is found in Romans 7, but by no means the only place.

Quote:

James S wrote:
It’s very clear to me, that it is not sin that kills us; sin causes death but it is not sin that takes away the life of our bodies. It is God himself that takes the life from our bodies at the time he thinks is right.

James S., Christ never came to redeem us from the death of this body, but he came to redeem us from the one that I wrote about.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 03:15 AM

Quote:

Yes, but if we think we see, and refuse to acknowledge our blindness, our sin remains.

This is the tough one Tom. This is why the Lord of Glory was killed.

Quote:

I've always liked what you've said about our righteousness vs. God's righteousness. In fact, I think we've discussed this at some length, including discussing this site, sharktacos.com/God/cross_intro.shtml, which talks about the same concept in terms of "justice" (which is the same word in the Greek as "righteousness").

You never told me about that article. I went to see it and I like his intro and Part 1 very much; it’s so true. I didn’t get to read the rest yet. I too appreciate your posts and the amount of evidence you put up.

Quote:

I think explaining things in terms of a paradigm shift is a good place to start.

Paradigm shift is ok; but I think most people relate to that concept as an intellectual/theological thing, which falls short of the real which is nothing less than “new birth”. This is heart work. (I know you know that)

Quote:

The idea of exchanging our righteousness for God's is a difficult concept to grasp. What comes to most people's minds is the idea of work-righteousness, that we need to stop trying to work our way to heaven, and accept the righteousness of Christ by faith. Of course, this is involved, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

That is the crunch of it for many, and the problem is not with what you said but what people understand that to mean. A theological belief, something to assent to, but how to pass from our righteousness to his righteousness is the strange part.

Quote:

Our righteousness encompasses not just our efforts to gain God's favor, but our entire frame of reference; everything we think, the way we perceive things, all this must be exchanged for God's righteousness, which also encompasses not just the works of righteousness which Christ performed in God's name, but God's way of thinking, His way of perceiving things, His entire frame of reference.

I like that.

Our righteousness encompasses our entire frame of reference; everything we think, the way we perceive things, the way we value things, all this must be exchanged for God's righteousness, which is God's way of thinking, His way of perceiving things, His entire frame of reference.

What we do is simply the result of our way of thinking, and what he does is but the result of his way of thinking. The contrast of the two is seen in the difference between the life of Christ and ours.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 04:31 AM

Quote:

What we do is simply the result of our way of thinking, and what he does is but the result of his way of thinking. The contrast of the two is seen in the difference between the life of Christ and ours.

Very nice to summarize the thought! As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.

I didn't know we hadn't discussed the sharktacos site. That's where I got my ideas regarding Isa. 30:18 and Zech 7:9. His site, especially the introduction, really helped me a lot. The idea that God's justice is not retribution but setting things right is made very clear. Not "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" but "turn the other cheeck" and "walk the second mile." We see God's justice, His "vengeance," fully revealed in the cross (and throught Jesus' entire life).

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 05:00 AM

Quote:

I've always understood John to be saying what you posted above, but I have to confess, I'm still not clear on what it implies to John and you. I thought the standards of Christianity are clearly set out in the Ten Commandments which is summarized in the golden rule so far as our relationship with each other go, that having confessed and repented of sins and having submitted to the Lordship of Christ, out of love to God, we 'go and sin no more'. That's how we accept God's righteousness and the paradigm shift is the work of the Holy Spirit at the new birth and continuing on in the believer’s life. . . But accepting His judgement? That seems to mean something special to John that I'm not clear on.

Appreciate your comments, Mark. In relation to the standards of Christianity being the Ten Commandments summarized in the golden rules. That is sort of the point of this discussion here regarding the need of redemption.
See how when we speak of the golden rules, we talk of love and forgiveness and grace; but when one speaks of the law they speak penalty, revenge and death.

Now what and why is the discrepancy between the law and the golden rule?

How come the golden rule vanishes (to love your neighbor as yourself)? Who would like to have penalty, vengeance and death on themselves?

How is it they require or see God requiring it of others?

If God really does require it of others, then if we fulfill the first golden rule of loving him with all our heart and mind and soul and strength how shall we ever fulfill the second one. Do you think that the second golden rule could be interpreted to mean requiring penalty, vengeance and death on others? If so, why would it not apply to us? So with this type of theology then we end up needing someone to save us from such a golden rule.

And what do we long for ourselves, and look forward to in heaven, but the original golden rule which speaks love, forgiveness and grace. Should we not do so unto others; but where do we get this idea? Much more, where do we get this spirit of love, forgiveness and grace? Do we not obtain it from him whom we are to love with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength? If so, is he not the source of it?

If so, where are vengeance, penalty and death from? How is it that with sin gone, death is gone? How is it that with sin gone all these ideas of retributive justice vanish?

When does retributive justice vanish?
Does it vanish when my neighbor has no sin? If so, why did they crucify the Lord?
Does it vanish when I am free of sin? Yes, it does. It was so demonstrated in Christ and in all his followers.

Interesting isn’t it?

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 07:13 AM

Quote:

Sinning, in and of itself, does not cause us to die the second death.

According to the Spirit of Prophecy, death is the inevitable result of sin. Actually, according to the Bible, death is the result of sin. It was the serpent who suggested that sin would not result in death. He was wrong, as Christ's death demonstrated.

The following quote makes clear that it was not God's intention that Adam and Eve should sin, and that their death was the result of their sin.

Quote:

It was not the will of God that the sinless pair should know aught of evil. He had freely given them the good, and had withheld the evil. But, contrary to His command, they had eaten of the forbidden tree, and now they would continue to eat of it--they would have the knowledge of evil--all the days of their life...They would be subject to disappointment, grief, and pain, and finally to death. (PP 59)

Well this seems to be speaking of the first death. Here's a statement dealing specifically with the second death.

Quote:

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. (DA 764)

The "this" referred to is the fact that the wicked die, not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, but due to the result of their own choice; i.e. sinning.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 07:28 AM

John, I want to understand what you wrote, so I'm going to try to pick it apart.

How come the golden rule vanishes (to love your neighbor as yourself)? Who would like to have penalty, vengeance and death on themselves?

I'm not quite getting this. I understand the idea that the golden rule means I desire upon others what I would desire upon myself. Because I would not desire to have penalty, vengeance and death upon myself, I should desire it upon my neighbor. I understand this. But not the question about how come the golden rule vanishes.

I think what you're asking is, why is it that people lay aside the golden rule by their desiring penalty, vengeance and death upon others? Is that right?

How is it they require or see God requiring it of others?

This seems to be comfirming my previous comment as to what your "how come" question meant.

If God really does require it of others, then if we fulfill the first golden rule of loving him with all our heart and mind and soul and strength how shall we ever fulfill the second one.

I didn't get this.

Do you think that the second golden rule could be interpreted to mean requiring penalty, vengeance and death on others? If so, why would it not apply to us? So with this type of theology then we end up needing someone to save us from such a golden rule.

I'm not really following this either.

And what do we long for ourselves, and look forward to in heaven, but the original golden rule which speaks love, forgiveness and grace. Should we not do so unto others; but where do we get this idea? Much more, where do we get this spirit of love, forgiveness and grace? Do we not obtain it from him whom we are to love with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength? If so, is he not the source of it?

The idea of this paragraph seems to be that the idea of death, penalty and vengeance must come from some source besides God, because if it came from God, then loving God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength would entail our desiring these things upon others, which by the golden rule would require our desiring it upon ourselves.

If so, where are vengeance, penalty and death from? How is it that with sin gone, death is gone? How is it that with sin gone all these ideas of retributive justice vanish?

The obvious answer would be that with the wicked destroyed, there is no more need for retributive justice, since they are gone. I'm sure this isn't your point, however. What was your point?

When does retributive justice vanish?
Does it vanish when my neighbor has no sin? If so, why did they crucify the Lord?

I'm not following this train of thought.

Does it vanish when I am free of sin? Yes, it does. It was so demonstrated in Christ and in all his followers.

I think I get this. This is saying that the life and character of Christ and His true followers, such as Stephen when he lay dying ("do not hold this sin against them") reveal the heart of God in not desiring any ill upon another, even one causing their death ("Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.")

John, I really like where you're wanting to go with this post. I hope you can fill in the parts I'm not getting, because I would like to understand the idea well enough to be able to share with others.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 08:12 AM

Quote:

… But accepting His judgment? That seems to mean something special to John that I'm not clear on.

You are right Mark. That does mean something very, very special to me. You see, I was afraid of God’s judgment. I was afraid for the same reasons that any sinner would be afraid. I tried hard to grasp the belief of this penalty payment theology, but it was hollow and there was no rest. How could I know that I had repented, covered every sin? How could I know that I have fulfilled the required belief? Do not many believe…but are lost?

There is supposed to be the fruit of the spirit; maybe I am supposed to put effort into the fruit, are we not supposed to be diligent? How much will be enough? But I had fear; fear of the unknown, fear of the known, fear that I tried to reason away. But the reason would work against me and say If God had not spared his son, why should he spare me? Well, his Son is on my side, he died for me, and I can hide behind him. But something did not fit there. Wasn’t the Son of the same mind as the Father? Why does the Father have to be so exacting? Is that what it is about; being perfect? Is that what perfection is about? And, the rules are so complicated, and …there is no rest, but more fear. As long as the Judgment was in the future I had fear, I felt unsaved, despite all the beliefs and religious activities. Sound familiar?

Judgment! Oh, if I could only know what the judge thinks of me; if I could know now while there is still time to make things right? But sad to say nobody thought we could, and they all said: “believe, do your best, and hope for the rest”.
Believe – believe what? Ok, I believe he died for me, but … no rest.
Do your best – All our righteousness is filthy rags; never mind the failures, those are nakedness.
Hope for the rest – hope … what hope is there in such exaction, such perfection. What hope is there when I need to be saved from the requirements of him in whom I am supposed to hope?

Well, by God’s grace, not connected to this turmoil, was an experience that I had seen in childhood, where one prayed, and the Lord answered him personally. And as I was wont to ask the Lord myself for the same matter (seeking a wife), I set about praying that he would show me whom he had for me.

One thing I found strange, that though I was deathly afraid of the judgment day, I did not seem to have any fear in seeking communication with him now. Well, my dear Lord was not going to let me go so cheap. Instead of just answering my prayer for a wife, he went for the much deeper yearning of my soul. At first I wondered why he wasn’t answering me for so many years. Then I determined to gain audience with him, and that is when things began to move. I knew I was not fit for audience with him, and yet all of a sudden he began to speak to me, put his finger on me re this or that that was not fit for audience with him in my life. These things now just fell by the wayside, wherein before I was either powerless to overcome or I had justified such. Fear disappeared, and I found myself looking forward to his searching cleansing word. I had no clue at first what was going on, but this I knew, God bent down to talk with me, just the way I was, and that was awesome. It was an inner voice, and it was not my head. Sin was now powerless. I could not do such now, in the audience of the Lord. Then he began to reveal himself – his character. The way he is; the way he looked at things; what love is, what life is, what sin is. Comparing that with my thoughts, I was consumed to the bone. Oh, my flesh did not feel like it, but that meant nothing, it will obey the spirit.

I realized then that God had been giving me his judgment. I knew his thoughts of me. I knew his thoughts; thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give me an expected end. His judgment became mine, and I live his judgment. My righteousness was gone, gone with the wind; I have his now, to look through his eyes is life, joy and peace.

Judgment! What a precious gift. It is nothing less than Salvation to me. It is, Christ in me, the hope of glory. It will be nothing less to whosoever will come to him for audience today. Let him tell you personally what he thinks of you now. Not your opinion of yourself, but his judgment of you, and his revelation of himself. You will never fear the judgment day again.

So, I discovered faith. Faith was born in audience with him, when I began to receive his judgment. His word became my life, and I died; yet I live. And the life I now live, I live by faith in him, his judgment, his word, his will is my delight. I discovered that faith does not exist or rather is misplaced until the moment when we personally let him judge us; receive his judgment. Then and only then has faith been placed in him. (Before that man believes himself). Apart from that, man can believe anything he wants about God, yet it has nothing to do with God. It is man’s judgment, man’s opinion (can be based on the bible), yet not of God.

Was I immediately made wise in all things? No. And at times that made me smart and sorrow; but I have a Comforter with me, who lifts me up unto my Father, and so does each of his children. He knows how to teach us in the way. Does that put my salvation in question? No again, for if God be for us, who can be against us. As he is writing his laws, his righteousness, his judgments in my heart; the righteousness and judgment of this world fall away.

This is in brief what accepting his judgment means to me.

Psa 32:8 I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 09:45 AM

John, I want to understand what you wrote,
How come the golden rule vanishes (to love your neighbor as yourself)? Who would like to have penalty, vengeance and death on themselves?
I'm not quite getting this. I understand the idea that the golden rule means I desire upon others what I would desire upon myself. Because I would not desire to have penalty, vengeance and death upon myself, I should not desire it upon my neighbor. I understand this. But not the question about how come the golden rule vanishes.

Sorry I was thinking of:

1st Golden rule: (though maybe not commonly thought so)
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

2nd Golden rule:
Mar 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

We can call it the “Constitution”.

See how when we speak of the golden rules, we talk of love and forgiveness and grace; but when one speaks of the law they speak penalty, revenge and death. Now what and why is the discrepancy between the law and the golden rule? How come the golden rule vanishes (to love your neighbor as yourself)? Who would like to have penalty, vengeance and death on themselves?

I think what you're asking is, why is it that people lay aside the golden rule by their desiring penalty, vengeance and death upon others? Is that right?

Yes, in other words, according to people’s concept of the law (penalty, vengeance and death); the golden rule, which is love and forgiveness and grace, the constitution of the law, vanishes.

How is it they require or see God requiring it of others?

This seems to be confirming my previous comment as to what your "how come" question meant.

Yes.

If God really does require it of others, then if we fulfill the first golden rule of loving him with all our heart and mind and soul and strength how shall we ever fulfill the second one.

I didn't get this.

In other words if God is really like that (penalty, vengeance and death), and we are to emulate him, how would we ever love our neighbor to fulfill the second golden rule.

Do you think that the second golden rule could be interpreted to mean requiring penalty, vengeance and death on others? If so, why would it not apply to us? So with this type of theology then we end up needing someone to save us from such a golden rule.

I'm not really following this either.

I am asking the preposterous question whether to love your neighbor as yourself could be interpreted to mean requiring penalty, vengeance and death on them? If so, why would it not apply to us? So with this type of theology then we end up needing someone to save us from such a golden rule.

And what do we long for ourselves, and look forward to in heaven, but the original golden rule which speaks love, forgiveness and grace. Should we not do so unto others; but where do we get this idea? Much more, where do we get this spirit of love, forgiveness and grace? Do we not obtain it from him whom we are to love with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength? If so, is he not the source of it?

But we are not looking for penalty, vengeance and death on ourselves but are longing for the original golden rule which speaks love, forgiveness and grace for ourselves. If so, should we not also desire and think so to others. Where did we get the idea that we should want love, forgiveness and grace? Moreover where do we get this spirit of love, forgiveness and grace, which we long for? Do we not obtain it from him whom we are to love with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength? Thus the fulfillment of the first golden rule, establishes the second. If so, is he not the source of it? Therefore God likewise lives the golden rule.

The idea of this paragraph seems to be that the idea of death, penalty and vengeance must come from some source besides God, because if it came from God, then loving God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength would entail our desiring these things upon others, which by the golden rule would require our desiring it upon ourselves.

Yes, plus what I said above.

If so, where are vengeance, penalty and death from? How is it that with sin gone, death is gone? How is it that with sin gone all these ideas of retributive justice vanish?

The obvious answer would be that with the wicked destroyed, there is no more need for retributive justice, since they are gone. I'm sure this isn't your point, however. What was your point?

No, to the contrary, as I point out in the following statements. It is not sin in others that produces retributive justice in the righteous, but it is sin in the heart of him that holds the retributive justice that produces it. The idea that retributive justice is needed because there are sinners out there is false, but I stated it first inversely and then positively. Inversely it would mean that if my neighbor has no sin I should have no need for retributive justice; but it is revealed that they crucified the Lord who had no sin; meaning that the retributive justice was in the heart of the sinner and not in the heart of the sinless.

Reconfirmed by the positive position of the sinless one owning no retributive justice but rather praying for them “ Father forgive them”. Showing that retributive justice vanishes when there is no sin in the heart.

When does retributive justice vanish?
Does it vanish when my neighbor has no sin? If so, why did they crucify the Lord?

Does it vanish when I am free of sin? Yes, it does. It was so demonstrated in Christ and in all his followers.

I think I get this. This is saying that the life and character of Christ and His true followers, such as Stephen when he lay dying ("do not hold this sin against them") reveal the heart of God in not desiring any ill upon another, even one causing their death ("Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.")

Yes, Yes.
1Jo 3:13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.
1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
1Jo 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jo 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 04:08 PM

I like the discussion between John and Tom, it is too heavy for me especially English is not my language but by reading slowly and carefully I might got at least what they meant with their post, but difficult for me to comment.

In His love

James S

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 04:09 PM

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 05:59 PM

TE - This is not something which God caused to happen, but was the result of an aberant element being added into things. As Christ said, "an enemy has done this."

MM – Actually, it was Jesus who “cursed” the earth for our sakes. Jesus introduced the laws of entropy. He allows evil angels to manipulate the laws of nature according to His good and perfect will.

TE - How many times did Jesus say that God was responsible for any bad thing, including the sickness He was healing someone of, or some death which befell someone? Never.

MM – The idea that Jesus never used sickness or affliction to educate people is unbiblical. Whether He causes it Himself or allows holy or evil angels to do His bidding is immaterial. Consider one example:

Numbers
12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam [became] leprous, [white] as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, [she was] leprous.

TE - Another problem is that it puts the Father at cross purposes with His Son. We do not see Christ taking anyone's life away. Again and again Christ said He came not to destroy, or to condemn, or to judge, but to save lives.

MM – Yes, Jesus came to save lives, but those who refuse redemption will suffer punishment and death in the lake of fire. The God of the OT was Jesus. The OT is full of stories of how Jesus dealt with sin and sinners. Jesus used water and fire and war to punish and destroy millions of sinners. He will use fire at the end to punish and destroy the wicked in the lake of fire.

Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

TE – If you wish to give some interpretation to Rev. 14, or any other passage, it must be rejected if you cannot produce an example from the life of Christ was corroborates the suggested interpretation.

MM – Here’s what James White wrote about the angels of Rev 14:

A Word to the Little Flock
Thoughts on Revelation 14
All classes of second advent believers agree, that the angel brought to view in the 6th and 7th verses of this chapter, represents the advent message, to the church and world. If this is true, then all five of the angels brought to view in this chapter, represent five distinct messages, prior to the advent, or we are left without a rule to interpret this chapter. . . . The last two angels are messages of prayer. We shall, no doubt, better understand them at the time of their fulfilment.

TE - According to the Spirit of Prophecy, death is the inevitable result of sin. Actually, according to the Bible, death is the result of sin. It was the serpent who suggested that sin would not result in death. He was wrong, as Christ's death demonstrated.

MM – Yes, death is the result of unforgiven sin – not the cause of it. The fact we are alive is evidence that sin does not cause us to die. The fact Jesus barred access to the tree of life is evidence sin does not cause death. Sinful choices can cause dreadful results, that is, if Jesus chooses not to intervene, if He decides to allow the laws of cause and effect to go unchecked. Jesus is in control of whether or not we suffer and die on account of our sinful choices – not sin or death or Satan.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 06:07 PM

JS - Why did God create Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil? Why did he create intelligent living being with the free will choice to live without the knowledge of good and evil, meanwhile Satan is roaming around ready to deceive them?

James, Jesus clearly instructed Adam and Eve regarding Satan’s rebellion and intentions to deceive them. They were not ignorant of good and evil in the sense they were aware of Satan’s evil plans. But they had no experiential knowledge of evil. They had never sinned. That’s what Jesus withheld from them.

PP 52
Our first parents were not left without a warning of the danger that threatened them. Heavenly messengers opened to them the history of Satan's fall and his plots for their destruction, unfolding more fully the nature of the divine government, which the prince of evil was trying to overthrow. It was by disobedience to the just commands of God that Satan and his host had fallen. How important, then, that Adam and Eve should honor that law by which alone it was possible for order and equity to be maintained. {PP 52.2}

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 06:15 PM

Tom.

James wrote:
God created his free moral agents (angels and men) without the knowledge of good and evil. They must find out themselves what is good and what is evil. Only God who knows what good is and what evil is.

Tom comments:
God never intended for us to know evil. This was the enemy's idea. If God's plans had been followed, no human being would ever have known the pain, suffering, misery and death that sin causes. God is good!

Unquote.

I repeat “If God's plans had been followed, no human being would ever have known the pain, suffering, misery and death that sin causes. God is good!”

IOW you are saying; “if God’s plans had been followed, no human being would ever have known what evil is.”
Am I right?

Yes.

But without knowing what evil is, how could Adam and Eve ever know what good is?

It's not necessary to know what evil is to know good. One need not know what hate is to know love, for example.

How could they ever know what unselfish love is?

The way to know what unselfish love is is by knowing God. There is no other way. Knowing evil is irrelvant to this, as one can know God without knowing evil.

How could they know that God loves them and they loved God and that is the way of life that God wants from them? Is not knowing what good is, a good thing?

They knew what good was, because they knew God. They were created good, and with the capacity of knowing good.

Is knowing what “evil” is, a sin?

The only way they could know evil was by eating of the forbidden fruit, so the only way they could obtain that knowledge was by sinning. This was knowledge God did not desire they should have.

Why did God create Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil? Why did he create intelligent living being with the free will choice to live without the knowledge of good and evil, meanwhile Satan is roaming around ready to deceive them?

Does God want them to find out what evil is? And when they knew what evil is, God might demonstrate his love? By which, His creation might understand what love really is?

Rosangela had a nice comment on this on another thread. Basically once Satan had entered into open rebellion against God, it was necessary that the other beings created by God have the opportunity to choose who they would follow, so the tree was set up as an opportunity for them to exercize their freedom of choice. But God no more desired that they should choose to rebel against Him then He desires for us to.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 08:56 PM

TE - This is not something which God caused to happen, but was the result of an aberant element being added into things. As Christ said, "an enemy has done this."

MM – Actually, it was Jesus who “cursed” the earth for our sakes.

As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, it was Satan who was responsble for the curse, not Jesus. It's a pity to confuse these two.

Quote:

Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this" (Matt. 13:27, 28). All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. (2SM 288)

Jesus introduced the laws of entropy. He allows evil angels to manipulate the laws of nature according to His good and perfect will.

How did Jesus introduce the laws of entropy? If you mean that the Universe was designed in such a way that sin results in the system not working perfectly as originally designed, that's correct. If you mean that God arbitrarily does something to change they system, that's not correct. The problem is sin, not God. Once sin is removed, the system will work perfectly, as designed.

TE - How many times did Jesus say that God was responsible for any bad thing, including the sickness He was healing someone of, or some death which befell someone? Never.

MM – The idea that Jesus never used sickness or affliction to educate people is unbiblical.

This is irrelvant to my comment. God is able to bringing blessings out of curses. The cross is the best example of this. My question is how many times did Jesus say God was responsible for any bad thing, and the answer is 0. Jesus always ascribed these things to the devil, who properly deserves the "credit" for them.

Whether He causes it Himself or allows holy or evil angels to do His bidding is immaterial.

It's extremely material. This is a fundamental issue which must be understood, or we will grossly misunderstand God's character. Before Jesus Christ came, the relationship between God and evil was not well understood. The Jews had the idea that God was capable of both good and evil. Jesus came to demonstrate that nothing but good flows from the heart of God, and that evil is the device of the enemy. At the very beginning of Christ's ministry, the first thing He did, was to take on the devil. His healings were designed to demonstrate the truth that sin, sickness and death come not from God, but from the evil one. Christ's entire ministry was dedicated to establishing this point.

This is why I asked you the question of how often Christ attributed some evil act to God. The answer is not once, and this is not by accident. The Spirit of Prophecy tells us that *nothing* that man can know about God can be known which was not revealed in the life and character of His Son while here on earth. If we are determined to look everywhere *but* the place that has everything we need or can know about God, we are bound to miss it. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. To know God, we should look to Him. As He Himself said, "Ye search the Scriptures ... but they are they which testify of Me."

Consider one example:

Numbers
12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam [became] leprous, [white] as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, [she was] leprous.

TE - Another problem is that it puts the Father at cross purposes with His Son. We do not see Christ taking anyone's life away. Again and again Christ said He came not to destroy, or to condemn, or to judge, but to save lives.

MM – Yes, Jesus came to save lives, but those who refuse redemption will suffer punishment and death in the lake of fire. The God of the OT was Jesus. The OT is full of stories of how Jesus dealt with sin and sinners. Jesus used water and fire and war to punish and destroy millions of sinners. He will use fire at the end to punish and destroy the wicked in the lake of fire.

Even holy angels did not understand things aright without beholding Jesus Christ as He was in the flesh. You certainly won't be able to do what holy angels couldn't do! When asked to reveal the Fahter, Jesus replied, "Have I been with you so long, that you have not known Me?" God is just like Jesus Christ was in the flesh.

Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

This is a curious verse for you to quote. What do you think this means?

TE – If you wish to give some interpretation to Rev. 14, or any other passage, it must be rejected if you cannot produce an example from the life of Christ was corroborates the suggested interpretation.

MM – Here’s what James White wrote about the angels of Rev 14:

A Word to the Little Flock
Thoughts on Revelation 14
All classes of second advent believers agree, that the angel brought to view in the 6th and 7th verses of this chapter, represents the advent message, to the church and world. If this is true, then all five of the angels brought to view in this chapter, represent five distinct messages, prior to the advent, or we are left without a rule to interpret this chapter. . . . The last two angels are messages of prayer. We shall, no doubt, better understand them at the time of their fulfilment.

TE - According to the Spirit of Prophecy, death is the inevitable result of sin. Actually, according to the Bible, death is the result of sin. It was the serpent who suggested that sin would not result in death. He was wrong, as Christ's death demonstrated.

MM – Yes, death is the result of unforgiven sin – not the cause of it.

The cause of it?! Of course death is not the cause of sin. Why even make this point?

The fact we are alive is evidence that sin does not cause us to die.

The exact argument of the serpent!

The fact Jesus barred access to the tree of life is evidence sin does not cause death.

Regarding our being alive physcially although we have sinned, this is a testament to the grace of God and His wonderful self-sacrificing love; not that sin does not cause us to die. As Paul tells us, "through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin." As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, had God in Christ not intervened immediately, they would have perished the very moment that they sinned (FW 21, 22). We live by the grace of God! To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life. Every breath we take is a gift of infinite value from our Creator and Redeemer.

Sinful choices can cause dreadful results, that is, if Jesus chooses not to intervene, if He decides to allow the laws of cause and effect to go unchecked. Jesus is in control of whether or not we suffer and die on account of our sinful choices – not sin or death or Satan.

God can involve Himself in the timing of when things happen, as related to our first death, but as far as the second death is concerned, if we die, it will the result of our own choice, not something God does to us.

Quote:

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life....The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.(DA 764, 108)

The principle of sin is one which can only lead to death. God does not cause this to happen. He prevents it for the ones who allow Him to heal them from the effects of sin, but there is simply no way that one who has given himself over to rebellion can abide in the presence of God. Note that the very same thing which causes the death of the wicked is that which gives life to the righteous. This demonstrates conclusively that it is sin which causes their death, not something God does to them, because the difference is not in what God does, but in the result of the revelation of God's glory. To one it gives life, while to another it slays. Why? Because of sin, clearly.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/15/06 09:03 PM

Quote:

It is not sin in others that produces retributive justice in the righteous, but it is sin in the heart of him that holds the retributive justice that produces it.

This is very well and clearly stated. This one principle helps to understand much of your post. Very good! I need to make a collection of these. Keep them coming!

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/16/06 05:37 AM

Thought that this would be a good addition.

Quote:

It is not sin in others that produces retributive justice in the righteous, but it is sin in the heart of him that holds the retributive justice that produces it.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/16/06 05:53 AM

Tom comments:
God never intended for us to know evil. This was the enemy's idea. If God's plans had been followed, no human being would ever have known the pain, suffering, misery and death that sin causes. God is good!

Unquote.

If “no human being would ever have known the pain, suffering, misery and death that sin causes”, then Satan and his angels would live forever. Sin and evilness would live in eternity side by side with righteousness and holiness.

Then what is God purpose to create Adam and Eve in a world where Satan live after he was expelled from heaven? Was he placing them in probation? Is this in line with his plan to wipe off sin and sinners from his universe?

In His love

James S

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/16/06 05:54 AM

M.M. wrote:
James, Jesus clearly instructed Adam and Eve regarding Satan’s rebellion and intentions to deceive them. They were not ignorant of good and evil in the sense they were aware of Satan’s evil plans. But they had no experiential knowledge of evil. They had never sinned. That’s what Jesus withheld from them.

Unquote.

The bible said they were created without the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve could not discern what evil is and what good is. They just live an ongoing life based to how they were created.

If “Jesus clearly instructed Adam and Eve regarding Satan’s rebellion and intentions to deceive them,” then they knew what “evil” is because they understood that Satan’s rebellion is something against God’s will and that if he deceived them they would become in the same state as Satan, in rebellion against God.

This I think is not as what the bible said.

In His love

James S

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/16/06 04:41 PM

Here apostle John identifies in verses 10 and 11 that righteousness and love are synonymous so identifying the golden rule as the rightweousness of the law, and in the next verse he says that which was stated:

Quote:
It is not sin in others that produces retributive justice in the righteous, but it is sin in the heart of him that holds the retributive justice that produces it.

There's also the statement of Paul's that love is the fulfilling of the law which shows the same thing (that love=righteousness). And of course the fact that love to God and love to man are the two "golden rules" of the law.

The statement "retributive justice" in the second clause is of course ironic. The retribution is there, but there's no justice. Also the whole idea of of "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" is foreign to God's principles. Because of the hardness of the hearts with those with whom He was dealing, God made allowance, but God's idea of justice is and always has been "turn the other cheek" and "walk the second mile." It blows are mind than a government could actually be run by principles such as these. Surely there must be exceptions for special circumstances in which case these principles can be temporarily set aside so the "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" can put down rebellion and get things back in order, so that the more peaceful principles can be returned to.

This is a fundamental issue of the Great Controversy. Is it possible for the universe to be run, always, by the principles by which Christ governed His live and demonstrated? Or do the principles of the evil one, such as force, need to be used against him to put down his rebellion?

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/16/06 05:43 PM

TE – As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, it was Satan who was responsble for the curse, not Jesus. It's a pity to confuse these two.

MM – Yes, it is a pity. It is Jesus who gives evil angels permission to curse the earth for our sake. Not the other way around. Evil angels can do nothing without Jesus’ express permission. Apparently you disagree. Do you believe the devils are free to do as they please? Or, do you believe they are answerable to Jesus? Please answer these questions. Thank you.

TE - If you mean that God arbitrarily does something to change they system, that's not correct.

MM – I believe it is clear that Jesus “cursed” the earth because our first parents sinned. If He hadn’t cursed the earth, if He hadn’t given evil angels permission to alter things, the laws of nature would have continued as originally designed. Evil angels are responsible for the changes that have occurred on earth – not sin.

TE - My question is how many times did Jesus say God was responsible for any bad thing, and the answer is 0. Jesus always ascribed these things to the devil, who properly deserves the "credit" for them.

MM – Please consider this example. Who caused Miriam’s leprosy?

Numbers
12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam [became] leprous, [white] as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, [she was] leprous.

TE - This is a curious verse for you to quote. What do you think this means?

MM – In Matthew 10:34, 35 Jesus is explaining the results of His ministry. It’s similar to the parable of the soils and seed.

TE - The cause of it?! Of course death is not the cause of sin. Why even make this point?

MM – I get the impression from what you’re saying that sin causes death like poison kills people. I believe we die the first death because Jesus forbids us to eat of the tree of life. The absence of its supernatural virtue is the cause of death. Its fruit and leaves are the antidote of death. Not even sinning can prevent them from perpetuating life. It appears to me that you disagree. Do you?

8T 28
The fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden possessed supernatural virtue. To eat of it was to live forever. Its fruit was the antidote of death. Its leaves were for the sustaining of life and immortality. {8T 288.1}

TE - As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, had God in Christ not intervened immediately, they would have perished the very moment that they sinned (FW 21, 22). We live by the grace of God! To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life. Every breath we take is a gift of infinite value from our Creator and Redeemer.

MM – I agree. But none of this takes away from the fact we would life forever if Jesus gave us permission to regularly eat of the tree of life. Please see Gen 3:20-22. The reason we gradually die is because the food we are allowed to eat sustains us for as long it does. Ultimately, though, Jesus gives and takes away our breath of life according to His will.

TE - God can involve Himself in the timing of when things happen, as related to our first death, but as far as the second death is concerned, if we die, it will the result of our own choice, not something God does to us.

MM – I agree. If we refuse to accept Jesus as our personal Saviour we will reap the rewards in the lake of fire. Jesus will not cause fire to rain down upon us if we choose Him.

TE - Note that the very same thing which causes the death of the wicked is that which gives life to the righteous. This demonstrates conclusively that it is sin which causes their death, not something God does to them, because the difference is not in what God does, but in the result of the revelation of God's glory.

MM – I do not believe we can build entire theology on this one insight. There is more to it. We must also eat of the tree of life to continue living, even in the New Earth. God is the source of life, but the fruit of life is what perpetuates it. That’s how Jesus designed things.

The glory of God would destroy even the 144,000 in their sinful flesh. Sinful flesh, that is, our skin and physical stuff, cannot abide the glory of God. That’s why we’re given new bodies before we enter the presence of God.

More importantly, though, is the fact unforgiven sins, sins that have not been blotted out, prevent us from being in the presence of Jesus. I believe it is this aspect that prevents the wicked from being able to abide in His presence.

If Jesus were to stay clear of the wicked, if He left them to themselves, they would be able to live forever eating of the tree of life – theoretically. In reality they would probably destroy themselves within a short period of time.

Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/16/06 05:49 PM

JS - The bible said they were created without the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve could not discern what evil is and what good is. They just live an ongoing life based to how they were created.

If “Jesus clearly instructed Adam and Eve regarding Satan’s rebellion and intentions to deceive them,” then they knew what “evil” is because they understood that Satan’s rebellion is something against God’s will and that if he deceived them they would become in the same state as Satan, in rebellion against God.

This I think is not as what the bible said.

MM - James, if Jesus had not forewarned our first parents concerning Satan’s rebellion and plan to deceive them what would that say about Him? In my mind it would imply that He was uncaring. Besides, knowing about evil is not the same thing as knowing evil. There is a difference. Does it translate well in your native language?

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/16/06 11:24 PM

TE – As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, it was Satan who was responsble for the curse, not Jesus. It's a pity to confuse these two.

MM – Yes, it is a pity. It is Jesus who gives evil angels permission to curse the earth for our sake.
Not the other way around.

You need to be really careful how you put this, MM. Certainly no creature can do anything without God permitting; no one can challenge God's power. But God's power has never been the issue. The issue involves God's character and the principles of His government. When you say that God, or Jesus, gives them permission, you seem to have the idea that what they do represents God's active will. But it doesn't. It represents God's permissive will.

You and I are in perfect agreement regarding God's permissive will. What needs to be discussed is God's active will.

Evil angels can do nothing without Jesus’ express permission. Apparently you disagree.

On what basis would you think I disagree with this? Do you think I believe God is impotent? What's your reasoning here?

Do you believe the devils are free to do as they please? Or, do you believe they are answerable to Jesus? Please answer these questions. Thank you.

To the extent possible, they are free to do as they please, in order that the the principles of the opposing government can be clearly visible. If God were to tie their hands at every pass, they could make the argument that they were never able to present their case. The horrible state of the affairs of this world are ample evidence of the free reign God has permitted them. Of course, we cannot discount God's protection and grace. As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, when the Spirit of God is withdrawn, then will be seen, as pictured in Revelation as the Seven Last Plagues, the true havoc that the principles of Satan will wreak.

TE - If you mean that God arbitrarily does something to change they system, that's not correct.

MM – I believe it is clear that Jesus “cursed” the earth because our first parents sinned.

Only in the sense that He recognized the curse, as the argument from Scripture (considering the original language and translations) and the Spirit of Prophecy (the statement I've quoted several times making clear that Christ did not plant the seeds of death in the system, but rather Satan). Jesus did not cause it to happen. God forbid!

If He hadn’t cursed the earth, if He hadn’t given evil angels permission to alter things, the laws of nature would have continued as originally designed.

Here it seems you are understanding God's cursing the earth as His allowing the evil angels to alter things, which is correct, although the expression "giving the evil angel's permission" is an unfortunate one, as it may imply that God was complicit in this.

Evil angels are responsible for the changes that have occurred on earth – not sin.

Both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy equate sin and Satan. This is an artificial distinction. The power of evil is the power of sin is the power of Satan.

TE - My question is how many times did Jesus say God was responsible for any bad thing, and the answer is 0. Jesus always ascribed these things to the devil, who properly deserves the "credit" for them.

MM – Please consider this example. Who caused Miriam’s leprosy?

Numbers
12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam [became] leprous, [white] as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, [she was] leprous.

Why not answer my question first? I've asked it several times now. How many times did Jesus say God was responsible for any bad thing? Another principle to bear in mind is that there is nothing we can know about God which was not revealed in the life and character of His Son while here in the flesh. What incident in Christ's life do you see revealing the characteristics of God you would see in the Numbers incident?

TE - This is a curious verse for you to quote. What do you think this means?

MM – In Matthew 10:34, 35 Jesus is explaining the results of His ministry. It’s similar to the parable of the soils and seed.

Yes, that's right. But why cite it? I agree with this principle. Jesus' purpose was to reveal the character of His Father. When this light was rejected, then dischord was the inevitable result.

TE - The cause of it?! Of course death is not the cause of sin. Why even make this point?

MM – I get the impression from what you’re saying that sin causes death like poison kills people.

This is not a bad analogy, but my question is, why are you suggesting that death causes sin? It was a strange point for you to make that death does not cause sin. I don't know why you would make this point.

I believe we die the first death because Jesus forbids us to eat of the tree of life.

I presented you a whole host of text from the Spirit of Prophecy and from Scripture making it as clear as sunlight that the cause of death is sin. Some of the texts even used these words: "the cause of death is sin." Yet you make no mention of these texts.

I've also made the point quite a number of times, which you have not acknowledged, that sin was responsible for the death of plants and animals; the eating of the tree of life was in now way involved in this.

The absence of its supernatural virtue is the cause of death.

Again, what of the plethora of Scripture and SOP texts which assert that sin is the cause of death? For example, Rom. 5 states that through one man sin came into the world, and by him death.

You're missing the theological implication of the views you are denying, IMO. Consider that, aside from the incident being recorded in Genesis, nowhere in Scripture is it mentioned that not eating of the tree of life caused death. Yet over and over again the point is made that sin results in death. This is an important point to understand. I don't see how we can understand the Gospel or the character of God correctly, without understanding this point, which is a reason I believe it is so often emphasized in inspiration.

Quote:

It is Satan's constant effort to misrepresent the character of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great controversy. (GC 569)

Its fruit and leaves are the antidote of death. Not even sinning can prevent them from perpetuating life. It appears to me that you disagree. Do you?

I completely disagree with your assertion that sin does not result in death. This disagrees with the Scripture texts and statements from the SOP which I cited.

8T 28
The fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden possessed supernatural virtue. To eat of it was to live forever. Its fruit was the antidote of death. Its leaves were for the sustaining of life and immortality. {8T 288.1}

TE - As the Spirit of Prophecy points out, had God in Christ not intervened immediately, they would have perished the very moment that they sinned (FW 21, 22). We live by the grace of God! To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life. Every breath we take is a gift of infinite value from our Creator and Redeemer.

MM – I agree. But none of this takes away from the fact we would life forever if Jesus gave us permission to regularly eat of the tree of life.

I think you're misreading the intent of the text. Let me give you a specific example. Consider the case of Cain and Abel. Do you think that Abel would not died had he eaten of the tree of life? Would it have been impossible for Cain to kill him? We read of the inhabitants before the flood, that their thoughts were continually evil. They were full of violence. They would have eventually killed each other, tree or no tree. And whoever survied would have had no desire to continue living. The tree of life has no power to overcome sin. If this were possible, the ministry of Jesus Christ would not have been necessary.

As John B. has been pointing out, the issues of sin are spiritual.

Please see Gen 3:20-22. The reason we gradually die is because the food we are allowed to eat sustains us for as long it does. Ultimately, though, Jesus gives and takes away our breath of life according to His will.

Please see my questions above. Also, if the only reason we physically die is by being deprived of the fruit from the tree of life, why did the plants and animals die? Why didn't they (the plants and animals) die sooner, since they did not partake of this fruit?

TE - God can involve Himself in the timing of when things happen, as related to our first death, but as far as the second death is concerned, if we die, it will the result of our own choice, not something God does to us.

MM – I agree. If we refuse to accept Jesus as our personal Saviour we will reap the rewards in the lake of fire. Jesus will not cause fire to rain down upon us if we choose Him.

You are putting this in what sounds to me to be an arbitrary way. My first thought in reading your statement is, "How nice of Him." Your writing gives the impression that the second death has nothing to do with the choice of the wicked, but is rather something imposed upon them by Jesus, as if Jesus wanted them to die while they wanted to live. But this is completely backwards! Jesus wants them to live, and they want to die. He allows them the result of *their* choice. (GC 542)

TE - Note that the very same thing which causes the death of the wicked is that which gives life to the righteous. This demonstrates conclusively that it is sin which causes their death, not something God does to them, because the difference is not in what God does, but in the result of the revelation of God's glory.

MM – I do not believe we can build entire theology on this one insight.

This is just one insight of many. The overriding insight, upon which we *can* build entire theology, is that when we have seen Jesus Christ, we have seen the Father.

Even though it's only one insight, you can't just ignore it. The fact of the matter is that the same thing which gives life to the righteous slays the wicked, which is the revelation of God's character. This is a crucial matter to keep in mind. In fact, this one principle explains a great deal of the Great Controversy.

There is more to it. We must also eat of the tree of life to continue living, even in the New Earth. God is the source of life, but the fruit of life is what perpetuates it. That’s how Jesus designed things.

One must also breath in the New Earth. This is how Jesus designed things. This is an irrelvant point as to the cause of the death of the wicked.

The glory of God would destroy even the 144,000 in their sinful flesh. Sinful flesh, that is, our skin and physical stuff, cannot abide the glory of God. That’s why we’re given new bodies before we enter the presence of God.

Even with new bodies they would be destroyed by the glory of God. You understand this to be the case, correct?

More importantly, though, is the fact unforgiven sins, sins that have not been blotted out, prevent us from being in the presence of Jesus. I believe it is this aspect that prevents the wicked from being able to abide in His presence.

You speak of sin as if it were something which existed apart from the human beings who commit the sin. The sin is in the mind and heart of the wicked, and *that* is why that can not abide God's presence. How could God possibly blot out their sin, unless they chose to repent? The blotting out of sin occurs in the hearts and minds of those who desire it. The books of heaven simply reflect the reality of God's work in men.

If Jesus were to stay clear of the wicked, if He left them to themselves, they would be able to live forever eating of the tree of life – theoretically. In reality they would probably destroy themselves within a short period of time.

Right! That's it! Sin is suicidal. You are correct. They *would* destroy themselves within a short period of time. This is why it is not necessary for God to destroy the wicked in some arbitrary fashion.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/16/06 11:25 PM

MM - James, if Jesus had not forewarned our first parents concerning Satan’s rebellion and plan to deceive them what would that say about Him? In my mind it would imply that He was uncaring.

Quote:

An excellent point.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/17/06 12:12 AM

Quote:

It represents God's permissive will.

This expression is a result of very bad theology. By its nature it suggests that "it is God's will"; beit a secondary will, but nevertheless "His Will". It stems from a rather self-centered approach of vieving God as the "all veto of ultimate control" making him actively involved in the evil, completely distorting God's character.

What God is willing to suffer from the creatures he has made, should never be seen as his "anykind of will" that they should do or cause such sin, suffering.

It is contrary to his will; therefore it is sin, and he suffers it.

All that is contrary to God's will is sin.

All sin is contrary to God's will.

The sin that God suffers may never be construed to be "anykind of God's will".

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/17/06 02:05 AM

I agree with your comments John. What would you suggest as an alternative phrase? How about, "that which God allows to happen because it is not in His character to force His will upon His creatures." Hmmm. That's accurate, but a bit wordy.

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/17/06 04:51 AM

How about, that which God suffers.

Perhaps we do not realize how much suffering God endures. Perhaps the cross tells us something!

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/17/06 04:20 PM

Quote:

Those who think of the result of hastening or hindering the gospel think of it in relation to themselves and to the world. Few think of its relation to God. Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God. Every departure from the right, every deed of cruelty, every failure of humanity to reach His ideal, brings grief to Him. When there came upon Israel the calamities that were the sure result of separation from God,--subjugation by their enemies, cruelty, and death, --it is said that "His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel." "In all their affliction He was afflicted: . . . and He bare them, and carried them all the days of old." Judges 10:16; Isaiah 63:9. (Ed. 263)

Posted By: John Boskovic

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/17/06 06:30 PM

Amen!

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/19/06 03:47 AM

MM - James, if Jesus had not forewarned our first parents concerning Satan’s rebellion and plan to deceive them what would that say about Him? In my mind it would imply that He was uncaring. Besides, knowing about evil is not the same thing as knowing evil. There is a difference. Does it translate well in your native language?

Do you mean knowing that Satan is an enemy of God and that A&E must be careful for him for he wants to deceive them is not knowledge of evil?

What does God mean with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil? What knowledge some one would gain when eating it?

In His love

James S.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/19/06 03:48 AM

So, what is the conclusion of this discussion? Why humanity need redemption? Is it because God’s love needs him to save us or is it because we want to be saved?

In His love

James S

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/19/06 04:08 AM

Views of the cause of death in this thread:

1. Sin causes death, death is the inevitable result of sin. God has nothing to do with human death, not in the 1st death neither the 2nd death.
2. Stopped eating the fruit of life is the cause of the 1st death and the fire that comes from God that burn the wicked is the caused of the 2nd death.

Yes, Tom has a valid reason to believe that “sin causes death”, not only it is supported by the Scripture but also by the SOP, so is M.M.’s view, according to him it is also supported by the Scripture and the SOP.

What I see might adding to Tom’s reasoning is that though only Adam and Eve that sinned but plants and animals died too. According to Tom, if only men that sinned and if sin does not cause death, then plants and animals would not die. Meanwhile if men died because of stopped eating the fruit of life, why plants and animal died too though they do not partake in the fruit of life?

I think, man is the ruler of the world, when they died, the world die too.

1st view placed God without stain, blameless, innocent and a God that loves.
2nd view placed God as the author of death or the cause of death.

I don’t like the 2nd view, but since death is men’s choice, then God might be viewed also blameless and innocent.

So, both views need God’s love to redeem us.

In His love

James S.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/19/06 04:54 PM

James, when I was first studying to become an SDA, I looked into the question of the imortality of the soul. It seemed to me there were many Scripture texts which could be taken both ways. I wonder how I would resolve the question. Would I stack up the texts on each side, and see which had more? What principle would I use to determine which view was correct? (Obviously one of the two views was looking at things incorrectly, assuming the Scriptures were consistent with themselves).

I considered the implications of the soul's being immortal. This would mean that hell would be eternal. I had trouble with the concept that God would cause the suffering of those who disagreed with Him for all eternity. This seemed to be very much out of harmony with God's character.

The reason I'm mentioning this is by way of analogy. As we consider different views of things, the view which portrays God's character in the best light will always be correct. This sentence, as I wrote it, is absolutely correct, but needs to be carefully explained. I did not write that the view which *we perceive* as portraying God's character in the best light will always be correct, but the view which actually does portray God's character in the best light is the correct view.

So the question is, how do we determine when God's character is being most accurately portrayed? Is it possible that we might give preference to a view which portrays God in a more negative way? Do we have a predisposition to do this?

The answer is yes, we do have a predisposition to see God's character in a negative way. The reason is that to the extent that we perceive God's character as arbitrary or petty, or selfish, we provide ourselves with a buffer against our own sin. If God is like us, the we are not so bad. This serves as a defence mechanism, so we can avoid having to face our true condition. It's like a self-induces amnesia. However, these things all happen unconsciously. The defence mechanism is triggered by the mind to protect itself.

The Gospel comes to the rescue because it gives us the courage to confront the ugly truth about ourselves. When we perceive the goodness of God, that leads us to have the conviction that God really does love and accept us as we are, and leads us to request Him to reveal our condition to ourselves, which is to say that His goodness leads us to repentance. Ellen White used to pray for God to show her the worst of her case. (That's a prayer that takes a lot of courage to pray!)

Getting back to the question of how we can know if we are correctly perceiving God's character. Here are three principles to consider:
a)Our conscience tells us if a certain view of God's character is right. The Scripture tells us of those whose conscience's are seared, but if we wish to know the truth, the conscience will be a valid indicator, as Jesus tells us that if we will to do His will, we will know the truth.
b)Compare the view of God's character with the character of Jesus Christ. All that we can know about God was revealed in the character of Jesus Christ as He lived among us.
c)The Holy Spirit's job is to guide us into all truth. This goes along with a). If we ask God for bread, He will not give us a stone.

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/19/06 05:01 PM

Regarding the question of why humanity needs to be redeemed, first the question of what this is addressing needs to be considered. That is, what is redemption referring to?

Redemption has to do with slavery. We are redeemed from slavery.

What is it that causes slavery? Jesus tells us in John 8:33 or so that whoever commits sin is the slave of sin. It is sin which enslaves us.

So the reason humanity needs to be redeemed is because it has been enslaved by the power of sin. Sin enslaves us by its power to deceive. The way to overcome the power of sin, and hence redeem us, is by the revelation of truth. The sacrifice of Christ (which includes His entire life, not just His death; also the resurrection) reveals the truth, freeing us from the power of sin. As Paul puts it:

Quote:

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled. (Col. 1:19-21)

We are reconciled by the blood of His cross. We used to be alienated and enemies in our mind because of sin, but now we have been reconciled. Since we were alienated and enemies in our minds, it is in our minds that we need to be reconciled. We are reconciled by the truth, when we believe it. The truth is that God so loved us that He gave us His Son. The truth is that God is just like Jesus Christ; when we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/20/06 04:42 AM

That is why Christian religion supersede all other religions in the world because beside it is the only religion that came from God, it also taught the core of human inability to safe themselves and God Creator of heaven and earth, God that live, God with no beginning and no end, eternal God himself that came to earth in human flesh to safe men from their fate, which through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Son of God, men have been redeemed from the death, released from the enslavement of sin, reconciled to God and have now an option to choose the way of God unto eternal life, which beforehand there is only one way to eternal death.

Oh, I love to share this to my fellow non Christ believers and this discussions here about this topic has add a lot of information and views that is necessary to finished my book.

Thanks to all.

In His love

James S

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/20/06 05:53 AM

What book? I liked your last statement. You're right that Christianity is a special religion. It is the only religion where God seeks after man, rather than man trying to reach God.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 05/20/06 11:38 AM

What book?

In fact, view years ago I was in the half way to finish writing my book that I would print and distributed freely to my fellow Adventist with the intention to inform them that SDA church is the church of Babel and 7th day Sabbath observation is the mark of the beast. I was almost sure that my theology against the SDA’s belief is correct.

Not only to distribute my book to my fellow Adventist but also I would distribute it freely to people from other Christian denomination, in order they may know SDA’s false doctrines and would not be entrapped in their teachings.

But Mike Lowe has awakened me after nearly one and a half year discussion in this forum, and I realized my mistake, which ruined my whole theology against the SDA’s doctrines as the fall of the Empire State building when hit by the terrorist planes.

From then on, I lost the intention to study more of the Scripture, because I must admit that my entire search to prove that SDA’s doctrines are against the Scripture failed. Thus, I stopped writing my book and wait for the right moment to continue it but of course it must be edited all the way to present the Scripture theology as according to SDA’s doctrine at it best and then distributed freely to my fellow brothers and sisters that are not SDA’s, to my fellow Christians from other denominations and also to my fellow SDA’s who are trapped in legalism.

I want to present my book in simple words, simple theology but accurate from the beginning, just as Darius said, if we don’t understand creation, it is difficult for us to grasp why we need redemption. Therefore, this discussion in this thread has added a lot to my understanding that I may continue writing my book and finished it. I hope I understand the way other Christians denomination thinks about us and through my book I may brought to them what they don’t know and understand about us.

In His love

James S.

Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 06/16/06 06:18 PM

Quote:

But Mike Lowe has awakened me after nearly one and a half year discussion in this forum, and I realized my mistake, which ruined my whole theology against the SDA’s doctrines

Hi, James. I remember you from VOAF, when you were still confused. I'm very happy to know that this forum was a blessing to you.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 06/19/06 01:19 PM

Hi Rosa.

Yes, we have quite a very "hot" discussion that time.

But, instead of getting off from SDA, I found that it is indeed the true church of God. Thanks to this forum, therefore, I came back to discuss again things that I am not so sure is SDA's view in order I would not teach and preach something wrong to my family, neighbors and friends.

In His love

James S

Posted By: Darius

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 06/23/06 01:08 AM

Tom, by definition religion is man's efforts to reach God. All religions do it though it is more obvious in some than in others.

Posted By: Redfog

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 06/23/06 04:34 AM

Ah, more refugees from VOAF. May it RIP.

Redfog

Posted By: vastergotland

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 06/24/06 01:30 AM

VOAF?

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 06/24/06 12:42 PM

Quote.
Redemption has to do with slavery. We are redeemed from slavery.

What is it that causes slavery? Jesus tells us in John 8:33 or so that whoever commits sin is the slave of sin. It is sin which enslaves us.

So the reason humanity needs to be redeemed is because it has been enslaved by the power of sin.
Unquote.

Thus, the reason Christ died for us is to release us from the enslavement of sin?

I think, the reason Christ died for us is to give back our life which had been robbed by Adam.

This is his main reason as the 2nd Adam, and life after death we have.

But we would all die again if God just sit down watching us, for none of us could released himself from the enslavement of sin, thus, God sent his Holy Spirit to assist those who believe to overcome. Now, there are many who would live everlasting and many who would die again in spite the got their life back.

In His love

James S.

Posted By: Darius

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 06/24/06 09:30 PM

The slavery from which we were redeemed occurred in the Garden of Eden when Lucifer claimed us. It is unfortunate that we continue to support Lucifer's claims by refusing to accept the fact that we have been redeemed.

Posted By: Redfog

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 06/24/06 11:00 PM

VOAF stood for Voluntary Online Adventist Forum if memory serves me correctly. It was a forum somewhat like this one but had a bit more, how can I put this, maybe verbal fighting might be what I'm looking for. There were times when the discussions were not as civil as they should have been.

Redfog

Posted By: Tom

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 06/25/06 04:48 AM

James, *a* reason Christ died was to release us from the enslaving power of sin. Actually it would be more accurate to say this is a reason Christ came, because it would be a mistake to isolate Christ's death from His life.

It's also true that Christ came to give us life. He came to give us life, and give it to us abundantly. In John 17, Jesus explains to us that to know God is eternal life. Jesus gives us eternal life by making God known to us. He is the way, the truth, and the life.

Posted By: James Saptenno

Re: Why humanity need redemption? - 06/25/06 11:13 AM

Quote.
The slavery from which we were redeemed occurred in the Garden of Eden when Lucifer claimed us. It is unfortunate that we continue to support Lucifer's claims by refusing to accept the fact that we have been redeemed.
Unquote.

Is this said to me?

How do you know that I refused to accept a fact that we have been redeemed?

Who have been redeemed, if you might tell me?

In His love

James S