Did Christ died the 'second death' for us...

I had never heard of this, but some people say Christ died the second death for us because the second death (the one after the 1000 years) is the penalty for sin...

Has anyone heard of this, and can anyone expand on why anyone would believe this....

I hear it every time I say it.

The wages of sin is death. Many people believe that means the 2nd death. If so, then anyone who sins deserves the 2nd death.

Was Christ's death for the purpose of experiencing the wages of sin in the sinner's stead? If so, then it was the 2nd death.

Of course, there are those, such as Tom, who would say that Jesus did not die for that purpose. And there may be those who say that sin only earns the sinner the 1st death.

Then there's the discussion of what the 2nd death means: separation from God, cessation from existence, etc.

But a fundamental issue with this is Why did Jesus die? You can check out Lesson #10 - The Meaning of His DEATH if you're in the mood for that.

The first time we heard this taught, was about 20 years ago....and it was Ty Gibson who was teaching it at the time. We had never heard that and we tried to study it out to see if he was right. Our conclusion was that he was wrong. Not too long ago, Al tried to combine the quotes that led us to our conclusion, and we have posted them on a study on our site, here is a link to the study ~

Did Jesus Die the Second Death?

http://www.thenarrowwayministries.org/Pages.asp?intCatalogID=101

A fine, short, and helpful study, Tammy!

There is more to study of the gospel than "second death" and "death of the cross" texts to explain the meaning of Christ's death here, like Heb 2:9,14-15 and much of Romans plus Gal 2:20 and others I can't think of off hand. "Christ tasted death for every man", and by his death he destroyed him who had the power of death - the devil, also freeing those who all their life lived in fear of death. That states the accomplishment of Christ's sacrifice of himself in relation to the devil and sinners. Romans 8&7 tells of Christ freeing us of condemnation by his death and leading us in the righteous fulfilment of the law which he gives us from his own meritorious character, a mind and character we cannot produce as sinful humans without God's help - which Jesus did exactly do. Gal 2:20 speaks of this Christian strategy: Christ living in us since we no longer lead our own lives.

Your study, Tammy, covered the sequence of God's justice for wicked humans and angels as well as Christ's death: you do not link the two together at all...! Granted the wicked angels are excluded from Christ's sacrifice, but Christ substituted his sinful, human nature and righteous merits for both our sinful nature and past sinful actions as well as our future judgement for sin. Christ suffered our judgement fate of eternal death & separation from God by being consciously separated from his Father, relationally for in condemnation he was burdened with and suffered the full wait of the world's guilt. Sorry if this is obvious, but your study, Tammy, didn't examine salvation: you just studied the use of certain words. Our guilt we suffer a fraction of: Jesus suffered the full version and it killed hy im by its condemnation from God's presence. Since he suffered our guilt and condemnation by grace, we are saved from the judgement death of the last day, and by his resurrection we are saved from death to life with God, by Christ's merits which earned him his own resurrection.

Substitution is the means and purpose of Christ suffering the second death on our behalf so that neither he nor we land up in the actual fire but accompany God, his and our father (his by divine begetting, our by divine & graceous adoption), into eternity from this sinful earth.

Questions, please?

The Sanctuary has helped me to see that Jesus did not die the 2nd Death. Jesus is represented by the Lamb and Satan is represented by the Goat. Without the death of Jesus (the Lamb) there is no remission of sin...and, in the case of the righteous, those sins are transferred from the Sanctuary to Satan (the Goat) and he is sent away into the wilderness.



Without the death of Christ, we would be lost...but thank God Jesus didn't die the 2nd Death, or else He never would have been resurrected....

At the end, all of the sins of the righteous will be transferred to Satan, and he will die the 2nd Death, never to rise again.

If one goes by what "Second Death" technically means, this is correct. Heb. 2:9 says that Christ "tasted" death. ("taste" means "experience"). The SOP says that Christ "suffered" the death which is ours, that we may live the life that was His.



Has Tom said this? I don't recall him saying this.

I don't recall you saying this either. But would you say it?

From what I understand of your position on Christ's death, taking the punishment in the place of the sinner is not one of the reasons for it. Do I understand you correctly?

What I have said is I don't believe that Christ died in order to legally enable God to pardon us. However, I've cited the DA quote that says that Christ suffered the death that was ours in order that we might live the life that was His many times, and I believe it.

To say that one of the reasons for Christ's death is "taking the punishment in the place of the sinner" is OK, IMO, as long as it is understood that sin pays its wages, which is death. IOW the punishment which Christ received in our place is the punishment which results from sin (as opposed to the idea that God was venting His wrath against Christ, so He wouldn't have to do so against us.)

To put it another way, I see our problem as being one of sin. The cross allows us to be delivered from its power. The only way for us to be delivered was for Christ to suffer its punishment in our place.

As Isaiah put it:

I'll accept that. However, I do not see how sin can pay Christ any wages since Jesus had no sin. Any "punishment" must come from another source. But that is best left for another thread. In this thread, we are on the same page that Jesus was punished in our place - as a substitute.

Tammy,

I can't say that there's anything wrong in Al's study. But I don't think it covers all that needs to be covered.

True, Jesus is not dead now. True, Satan will bear the sins of the righteous. But there's more to consider.

Here's the statement Tom mentioned:
The way I see it, the "death which was ours" in the statement refers to the 2nd death. That is the death which serves as the wages of sin. Hence, Jesus suffered that death.

How do you understand the "death which was ours" in DA 25, which Jesus suffered for us?

Here's a few more quotes to consider:

The text I quoted, from Isa. 53, says where it (the "punishment") came from.

When I read those verses, I see "smitten of God." Sin might bring its own punishment, but not in the case of our sinless Substitute.

The text says that "we" considered him stricken by God, "but" he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities.

If sin brings its own punishment, and Christ became sin for us, why would that not apply to Him?

The following is from a sermon preached by George Fifield in 1897 at the General Conference. The whole sermon is beautiful. It's hard to know where to stop it. I'd be happy to present the rest. I decided to stop at a point where it looked like he was not directly discussing Isa. 53.

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." The other translation reads: "Surely he bore our griefs, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was pierced through by our sins; he was crushed by our misdeeds. The chastisement of our peace lay upon him, and in his wounds there became healing for us. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Another translation: "The Lord let all our misdeeds come upon him." Verse eight: "He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living. For the transgression of my people was he stricken." The other translation: "From distress and judgment was he taken; and in his generation who thought that he should be plucked out of the land of the living for the misdeeds of my people, punishment to them." Tenth verse: "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." Translation: "It pleased the Lord to let him be crushed; he hath made him sick; when his soul hath given a trespass offering, he shall see seed and live long." The thought is clearly enough expressed in the Authorized Version, but since we are liable sometimes to receive the wrong thought, the translation helps us to see it more clearly.

The third verse states and vividly contrasts the true and the false idea of Christ's mission, and of his work, and of the atonement. One is what was, and the other is what we thought was; one is truth, the other is falsehood; one is Christianity, the other is paganism. We would do well to study every thought in that text. "Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; he was pierced through by our misdeeds, and God permitted it because in his stripes there was healing for us. But we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Whose griefs? Whose sorrows? - Ours. The grief and the sorrow that crushed the heart of Christ, and took him from among the living, so that he died of a broken heart, was no strange, new grief or sorrow. It was not something unlike what we have to bear; it was not God arbitrarily putting upon him our sins, and thus punishing our sins in him to deliver us. He took no position arbitrarily that we do not have to suffer. It was our griefs and our sorrows that pierced him through. He took our sinful natures, and our sinful flesh, at the point of weakness to which we had brought it, submitting himself to all the conditions of the race, and placing himself where we are to fight the conflict that we have to fight, the fight of faith. And he did this by the same power to which we have access. By the Spirit of God he cast out devils; through the eternal Spirit he offered himself without spot; and the Spirit of God rested upon him, and made him of quick understanding in the things of God. It was our sins that he took; our temptations.

It is my experience that in nine cases out of ten, when men consider those temptations in the fourth chapter of Matthew, which are typical of all his temptations, they fail to recognize their likeness to our own. They make him tempted in all points like as we are not, rather than like as we are. Picture to yourselves the wonderful experience that Christ had at his baptism, when he entered upon his mission, when the Spirit of God descended upon him with power, and the voice was heard, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." It would seem that after such an experience as that, it would surely be all smooth sailing. But out there in the wilderness, when the Saviour was in apparent weakness and hunger, the devil pressed him, saying, "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." Have we not had this experience? How many of us can look back to the time when we were baptized, when we heard God saying to us, This is my beloved son, this is my beloved daughter, in whom I am well pleased; and we thought we would have smooth sailing, but soon found ourselves out in some wilderness of temptation, conscious of our weakness, and the devil came along and said, You are a pretty servant of God.

Again the devil took him up into a high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth, and said: "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." The circumstances were such as to make it plain that the design of the devil was to lead him to bow down and support a god of force, instead of making him the king of the world. He would have him be untrue to his mission. And so he would have us, by some false method, to think that we may make a great many more dollars, and to see how much of the world we can get. When he failed with Christ on these two points, he pressed him farther to get him to presume upon the mercy of God. Just so he would tempt us to presume upon the mercy of God.

He took our sorrows, our griefs, all the conflicts of our lives upon him, and was tempted in all points as we are. He took the injustices of our lives upon him too. It is a fact that you and I have to suffer for many things for which we are not at fault. All my suffering is not the result of my sin. Some of it is; but just as long as sin exists, injustice exists. As long as men sin, men will be sinned against. Just so you and I will have to suffer for the sins of others; and so God, to show that he knew and realized all that, let him that was perfectly innocent, take the injustice and sin of us all. O brethren and sisters, he did not bear some other grief or some other sorrow, but he bore our griefs and our sorrows. He was pierced through by them, and the Lord permitted it, because there was healing in it for us; not that he might appease God, or reconcile him unto us. Every passage of Scripture that refers to the reconciliation or atonement, or to the propitiation, always represents God as the one who makes this atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation, in Christ; we are always the ones atoned for, the ones to be reconciled. For us it was done, in order that, as Peter says, he might bring us to God.

The only way to do this is by destroying sin in us. He took our sins upon him in order that he might bring us to God. It was that he might break down the high middle wall of partition between human hearts and God, between Jew and Gentile, between God and man; that he might make us one with him, and one with one another, thus making the at-one-ment, or the atonement. In Christ Jesus we who were sometimes afar off were made nigh by the blood of Christ, so that we are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth into an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." This is as near to the Lord as we can get. This is the at-one-ment; this is why he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, that he might do that for us by breaking down all those things which separate hearts from hearts, both human and divine. Notwithstanding this, we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. That was what we thought about it. We said, God is doing all this; God is killing him, punishing him, to satisfy his wrath, in order to let us off. That is the pagan conception of sacrifice. The Christian idea of sacrifice is this. Let us note the contrast. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That is the Christian idea. Yes, sir. Indifference keeps, hatred keeps, selfishness keeps, or gives, if at all, but grudgingly, counting the cost, and figuring on some larger return at some future time. But love, and love only, sacrifices, gives freely, gives itself, gives without counting the cost; gives because it is love. That is sacrifice, whether it is the sacrifice of bulls and goats, or of him who is the Lamb of God. It is the sacrifice that is revealed throughout the entire Bible. But the pagan idea of sacrifice is just the opposite. It is that some god is always offended, always angry, and his wrath must be propitiated in some way.

If it is an ordinary case, the blood of bulls and goats will suffice; but if it is an extraordinary case, the blood of some innocent virgin or child must flow; and when the god smells the blood, his wrath is appeased. We talk of pagan immortality, pagan Sunday, pagan idolatry, etc.; but it seems to me that the lowest thought is that men have brought this pagan idea of sacrifice right into the Bible, and applied it to the sacrifice of the cross. So the Methodist Discipline uses these words: "Christ died to reconcile the Father unto us;" that is, to propitiate God so that we could be forgiven - paganism straight out. Why, brethren and sisters, it is the application of the pagan conception of sacrifice to the sacrifice upon the cross, so that that wonderful manifestation of divine love, which God intended should cause all men, all beings in the universe, to wonder and adore, has been turned around and made a manifestation of wrath to be propitiated in order to save man. I am glad that we are losing sight of this manner of viewing the subject, where we do not say that Christ died to reconcile the Father unto us. Brethren, there is sometimes such a thing as to give up the expression of a thing, and think we have thus gotten rid of it, when a good deal of it still lingers and clouds our consciousness of the love of God, and the beauty of his truth, so that we cannot present a clear gospel to hungry souls that are waiting to know about God. I pray that God will let the sunlight of his truth shine into my heart, and into all of our hearts. Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows that he might bring us to him; but we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. That is what we thought; that is what we esteemed; not what was, but what we thought was. Now, every text in the Bible that speaks of reconciliation, makes God the one who makes the reconciliation, - God in Christ. Every text in the Bible that speaks of the atonement, when we get it right, makes God the one who makes the atonement in Christ; not Christ simply, but God in Christ; just as God in Christ creates, redeems, reconciles, he makes the atonement. And every time the atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation are mentioned, it leads us right back to the character of God.

This is off the topic for this thread. I'll read it, but I won't comment on it here. Is there a thread where you're currently discussing this?

"The Meaning of His death" would be a good place. I bumped it for you.

I believe all those quotes, Arnold.

Ellen White references "the death of the cross" 101 times in the Spirit of Prophecy. Not ONCE does she connect it in any of those 101 times to the 2nd Death.

The Bible is clear as to the definition of the 2nd Death...it doesn't fit the death Jesus died at all.

Sure she does. Look at DA 764, where it talks about the destruction of the wicked. Bear in mind that the purpose of the chapter "It Is finished" is to discuss what was accomplished by Christ's death. DA 764 discusses how Christ's death made clear how the wicked are destroyed.

Tammy, I'm curious as to how you would answer this as well.



It seems to me that the logic of Scripture (EGW too) is that Christ experienced death (the real thing, not what He called "sleep") so that we would not have to.

Tom,

No, I have to disagree. Christ experienced death as we all will have to unless we live to the end, that of the grave. Now the eternal death is the one from the lake of fire which those who reject Christ's gift of eternal life will experience as the 'second death'. Thats what eternal death is, and Christ did not have to experience it in order to save us from the wages of sin, only the death of the grave or those that 'sleep' which he did go through at the tomb.

Then he ascended after the resurection to go through the process in the heavenly tabernacle to put that sin on the true perpetrator, which is Satan, who then will meet the eternal death of the lake of fire. I am not a theologian so its rough, but thats my understanding in a nutshell, and I have not seen anything said or posted that leads me to change that.....

Rick

Yes, Rick, had Christ actually died the 2nd death due Satan, etc., in the way it is defined in Revelation, he would not have been resurrected and would not be alive today.....How would mortal death for Jesus have any salvivic effect...? - since there is a Biblical "resurrection" from mortal death - hence we don't need salvation from the grave's mortal death, but from eternal death!

Christ didn't need to experience eternal death to save us from the same? Which death Christ needed to die is indeed a technical point of critical importance, and can be sorted out with some thought and discussion.

Jesus had to meet the demands of divine justice, ie. perfect righteousness toward the law but also "the soul that sins, it shall die": the only dispute over the former is whether Christ built perfect righteousness in sinful human form or sinless/with sinful form; the dispute over "shall die" for the Saviour is at least first or second death - forgetting Islam's general objections, as well as some other issues. Jesus was required to suffer the just death due sinners so as to redeem them from it, not so, I would say.

Did you see this one?


What is the penalty for man's transgression? Is it the 1st death or 2nd death or something else?

Here's a reference to Christ's substitution:

What do you believe is the "punishment of the guilty" that Christ bore?

If any1 has Ty Gibson's books, in particular "See With New Eyes" and "Shades of Grace," I agree w/ his thoughts, and I think he expresses himself very well.

In the SOP, I think the following is particularly clear:

Hi asygo,

If Christ bore the punishment of the guilty did God kill Him or did sinners kill Him?

scott

None of the above. He died of a broken heart.

The penalty for man's transgression is death. There was no 1st or 2nd Death before Adam & Eve sinned. When they sinned, immediately, things changed, in nature as well as in man.

I haven't thought what I'm going to say out real far, so, I'm not sure about it...but we are told that Jesus was the "first fruit" of the righteous, right? What death do the righteous suffer? Only the 1st, as only the wicked will suffer the 2nd Death. So, if He was the First Fruit of the righteous, and the death the righteous suffer is the 1st Death, then it seems clear that is the death that He suffered as well.

What Jesus suffered was far worse than the 2nd Death, I'm not minimizing his suffering by believing He died the 1st Death. He died with the weight of the sins of the world on His shoulders, NO ONE else ever did that.

Amen, I agree 100%!

So if Christ bore the punishment for our sin is the punishment for sin a broken heart as a result of being separated from God?

scott

Hi Tammy,

I like this very well.

I think that the idea that Christ died the second death comes from the Papal/Calvinistic view of the atonement. It is called penal substitution where God’s insulted integrity demands (God’s law demands) Jesus suffer enough to include the punishment due to the vilest sinner. According to this view Jesus must suffer physical pain equal or greater than what the worst repentant sinner deserves. Otherwise the justice of God would be compromised. So Christ suffers the collective debt for all those who are saved so that they can be acquitted and given a free ticket to heaven. Christ becomes the proverbial “whipping boy” for our sins.

What you said makes much more sense to me. Any way that Christ died would resemble both the first and second death because death is death. Both the first and second death result in the physical shutdown of bodily functions. For one group this shut down is only temporary, but to the other it is permanent. The cause of death seems to be what is more important than the death itself.

What do you think is the cause of the 2nd death?

scott

Boy, so many things to comment on! Wish I had 2 good hands.

Just a quick comment now. More later.

Scripture ascribes Christ's death to multiple causes. It is true that Christ died of a broken heart, but also true that Scripture ascribes his death to men:



Satan is also given credit. Our sins are said to have caused His death as well.

In spite of this, many think God was responsible, that God kill Him.

Dying with the weight of the sins of the world was precisely experiencing death (not "sleep" as Christ referred to the first death). We can't really say He "died" the second death, since that's an eternal death. But Scripture says He "tasted" it.

Similarly the SOP says He "suffered" the death which was ours. What is this referring to? It's referring to what would have been our experience if we had not been freed from sin.

Also, there's this:



This explains the death of the wicked in terms of what Christ experienced. By understanding one, we can understand the other (one being Christ's death, the other being the death of the wicked).

I talked to one of my 'wise men' last night, and he felt that Adventist preach the the penalty of man's transgression was the 2nd death. I disagreed and told him, the wages of sin is just plain death which Adam and Eve would have never experienced except for sin, but the 2nd death is the result of a final judgement, in which Christ our Advocate will present each case before God the Father at the Heavenly Tabernacle to judge, where the sins of the chosen who have accepted Christ as Saviour and Lord are covered, Christ assumes their sins and accountability. They are freely forgiven and covered by Christs righteousness. That sin then goes through the process much like the sin going to the scapegoat—Azazel, and will have the sin passed on to the perputrator of all sin, Satan. The wicked hold on to their sin, so they will suffer the 2nd death and I told him it would be along with Satan and his angels, but he felt that wasnt supported, so I will give some study to that....


Here is the part on sin going to the scapegoat—Azazel...
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-23.htm

"...The heavenly sanctuary is the great command center where Christ conducts His priestly ministry for our salvation. He is able "to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He ever lives to make intercession for them" (Heb. 7:25)..... In the earthly sanctuary the priests carried out two distinct ministries—a daily ministry in the holy place, or first apartment (see chapter 4 of this book) and a yearly ministry in the Most Holy Place, or Second Apartment. Those services illustrated Christ's priestly ministry.9

2. The ministry in the holy place. The priestly ministry in the holy place of the sanctuary could be characterized as a ministry of intercession, forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration. A continual ministry, it provided constant access to God through the priest.10 It symbolized the truth that the repentant sinner has immediate and constant access to God through Christ's priestly ministry as intercessor and mediator (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 4:14-16; 7:25; 9:24; 10:19-22).

When the penitent sinner11 came to the sanctuary with a sacrifice, he laid his hands on the head of the innocent animal and confessed his sins. This act symbolically transferred his sin and its penalty to the victim. As a result, he obtained forgiveness of sins.12 As The Jewish Encyclopedia states: "The laying of hands upon the victim's head is an ordinary rite by which the substitution and transfer of sins are effected." "In every sacrifice there is the idea of substitution; the victim takes the place of the human sinner."13

"In this ritual parable the sanctuary assumed the penitent's guilt and accountability—for the time being at least—when the penitent offered a sin offering, confessing his errors. He went away forgiven, assured of God's acceptance. So in the antitypical experience, when a sinner is drawn in penitence by the Holy Spirit to accept Christ as his Saviour and Lord, Christ assumes his sins and accountability. He is freely forgiven. Christ is the believer's Surety as well as his Substitute."15

In type and antitype the holy place ministry primarily centers on the individual. Christ's priestly ministry provides for the sinner's forgiveness and reconciliation to God (Heb. 7:25).......

The ministry in the holy place brings about the believer's justification and sanctification.

The Final Judgment. The events on the Day of Atonement illustrate the three phases of God's final judgment. They are (1) the "premillennial judgment" (or "the investigative judgment") which is also called the "pre-Advent judgment"; (2) the "millennial judgment"; and (3) the "executive judgment" which takes place at the end of the millennium....

The cleansing of the sanctuary required two goats—the Lord's goat and the scapegoat (Azazel in Hebrew). Sacrificing the Lord's goat, the high priest made atonement for "the Holy Place [actually the Most Holy Place in this chapter], the tabernacle of meeting [the holy place], and the altar [of the court]" (Lev. 16:20; cf. 16:16-18).

Taking the blood of the Lord's goat, which represented the blood of Christ, into the Most Holy Place, the high priest applied it directly, in the very presence of God, to the mercy seat—the cover of the ark containing the Ten Commandments—to satisfy the claims of God's holy law. His action symbolized the immeasurable price Christ had to pay for our sins, revealing how eager God is to reconcile His people to Himself (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19). Then he applied this blood to the altar of incense and to the altar of burnt offering which on every day of the year had been sprinkled with the blood representing confessed sins. The high priest thereby made an atonement for the sanctuary, as well as the people, and brought about cleansing of both (Lev. 16:16-20, 30-33).

Next, representing Christ as mediator, the high priest took upon himself the sins that had polluted the sanctuary and transferred them to the live goat, Azazel, which was then led away from the camp of God's people. This action removed the sins of the people that had been symbolically transferred from the repentant believers to the sanctuary through the blood or flesh of the sacrifices of the daily ministry of forgiveness. In this way the sanctuary was cleansed and prepared for another year's work of ministry (Lev. 16:16-20, 30-33).17 And thus all things were set right between God and His people.18

The Day of Atonement, then, illustrates the judgment process that deals with the eradication of sin. The atonement performed on this day "foreshadowed the final application of the merits of Christ to banish the presence of sin for all eternity and to accomplish the full reconciliation of the universe into one harmonious government under God."19

2. Azazel, the scapegoat. "The translation 'scapegoat" (escape goat) of the Hebrew azazel comes from the Vulgate caper emissarius, "goat sent away" (Lev. 16:8, RSV, KJV, margin).20 A careful examination of Leviticus 16 reveals that Azazel represents Satan, not Christ, as some have thought. The arguments supporting this interpretation are: "(1) the scapegoat was not slain as a sacrifice and thus could not be used as a means of bringing forgiveness. For 'without shedding of blood is no remission' (Heb. 9:22); (2) the sanctuary was entirely cleansed by the blood of the Lord's goat before the scapegoat was introduced into the ritual (Lev. 16:20); (3) the passage treats the scapegoat as a personal being who is the opposite of, and opposed to, God (Leviticus 16:8 reads literally, 'One to Yahweh and the other to Azazel'). Therefore, in the setting of the sanctuary parable, it is more consistent to see the Lord's goat as a symbol of Christ and the scapegoat—Azazel—as a symbol of Satan."21......"

Richard, I think you may be making things overly complicated. Let's start with the scapegoat:



The idea of the sins being transferred to the scapegoat is simply communicating the truth that Satan bears the responsibility for that which he has caused. Please note that his suffering is not limited to the sins of the righteous he has caused. Indeed, that's not such a big deal, since they've been forgiven. His greater responsibility will be regarding those he has caused to be lost.

Sins are not literally transferred as if they were loaves of bread. Sin is in our character. We must be freed from sin in order to abide in God's presence, because God is good, and sin is bad. The problem is sin.



Note the same thing that slays the wicked gives life to the righteous. What causes the problem? The revelation of God's character (aka the "light of the glory of God"). Why? Because of sin.

Those who cling to sin cannot bear the revelation of God's character, as EGW explained. Therefore the entire work of the Gospel is the revelation of God's character that we may be set right with God and thus freed from sin, and saved from death.

Thanks, Richard, for highlighting the point that the scapegoat represents the devil, and plays no part in atoning for believers. What of Jesus, our substitute for sin's penalty of eternal death, not suffering @ Calvary the 2nd death of the final judgement against sin he himself saves us from by his death for sin, in the sacrifice of the atonement in the 'real' sanctuary service of God? How could his mortal death make Jesus the world's Saviour from eternal death, for which he is the substitute??...

This isn't based on any pagan theory of substitution: this is the just wrath of God against sin needing meting out and God himself providing the propitiation in Christ's sacrifice. The pagan version has the human worshipper appeasing the "wrath" of the heathen idol, only there is no wrath in the heathen definition of appeasement, better called expiation: heathen expiation omits divine wrath against sin, and is offered by humans. Biblical propitiation involves just wrath against sin and God himself giving his only begotten Son to propitiate for our sins by his blood. How can Christ's propitiation by his blood not involve dying the 2nd death of sin as our substitute???...

I'm quoting this only to highlight the legal issue of Christ's death which is off topic here but features in "The meaning of his DEATH", where Tom is on topic with this point.

This post is just to point out the other thread due to the disagreement with the issue here.

It's not off topic. One can't possibly discuss whether Christ died the second death or not without a consideration of the meaning of His sacrifice. For example, I keep bringing up DA 764 for this very reason, although no one seems to have been paying attention to it. I think this brings out one of the key reasons for Christ's death. Apart from Christ's death, a doubt could have remained when Satan dies, which she explains in the DA quote.

It's interesting that this disagreement transcends the legal issues, however. For example, it appears that you, Arnold and I agree regarding the question of Christ's tasting the second death, although we disagree as to why. I know of others who basically agree with the view of the atonement I hold to (which is what Ty Gibson teaches, btw, in case one is familiar with that) but who do not agree that Christ's death involved the second death (which isn't to imply Ty doesn't; Ty agrees regarding the 2nd death with the position I've been sharing).

Yes, how quaint that all aspects of the Gospel iter-relate. Still, one thread at a time, hey.

Your brief point of order on DA 764...: WE DON'T DISPUTE that point, since it's part of all the truth, yet you don't allow - 'pay no attention' - to our arguments and SOP & Bible quotes stating a legal necessity for forgiveness.

We allow your part of the truth but you don't allow the other side, the rest, of the truth: you DO have the problem on that topic...that thread.

Here it is the case that salvation's substitutionary Saviour is such because he did not have the Spirit assuring him of his resurrection when he expired. Ie. he died without execting to rise again, thus experiencing the awfulness of the 2nd death. This enunciation is for others who may be less sure about it.

Tammy (and Richard), how do ye understand Christs death to be substitutionary, given also what I've just written re this thread??

1.You say you don't dispute the point (regarding DA 764), but it's not at all clear to me that the point has even been understood. What do you think the point is?

2.Regarding there being a legal necessity for forgiveness, I don't have a problem with that. What I have been arguing against is the idea that Christ had to die in order for God to have the legal right to pardon. Also, I would dispute the idea that it is the law that *causes* anything to happen. The law *recognizes* what happens, so to speak (since the law can't "do" anything, it not having a brain or a will, these expressions involving the law are all metaphors) but even without considering the law, Christ would died, and for the same reasons as there are considering the law. The law does not create any new realities or demands that were not already existing.

3.Regarding the "Here is" "substitutionary" paragraph, I agree. Christ is our substitute in that had He not experienced death (not "sleep" but death), we would have. As Sister White put it, "He suffered the death that was ours that we might live the life that was His."

Well Scott, I guess I would say that the 2nd Death is the result of the need to wipe out all sin and sinners, and to ensure that sin never rises again. Those who die the 1st Death and who are translated, have been proven "safe to save".

Here is a description of those who will die in the 2nd Death - I honestly don't understand how anyone can put Christ in with this class of people...it is a mystery to me. And then, we have this text, This text clearly connects the "first resurrection" with Christ. No one who dies the 2nd Death, rises in the first resurrection. All the texts in the Bible that reference the 2nd Death, none of them even hint that Jesus died that death.

I think you are right, Scott, when you said,

We give Protestants a real reason to question our doctrines, when we teach that Jesus died the 2nd Death.

Tom,

Please help me out, as I have never come across this precise issue before, so its a bit hard for me to grasp and to come to a complete understanding on it...

Rick

Colin,

I am studying that, it somehow came to my attention in some other issues I was looking at...

Rick

Tammy,

I am sitting in the catbird seat with you on this point, and await a better understanding....

Rick

(PTI, not being Scott)

The need to wipe out all sin and sinners? Sin and sinners do not need to be "wiped out." Sin is a parasite which destroys its victims. Once the victim is destroyed, there is no more sin, as a parasite needs a host.



This makes clear that the destruction of the wicked is not due to God's "wiping them out," but is the inevitable result of their choice. Death is the inevitable result of sin. If sin were innocuous, one could argue that it could need to be wiped out (although, if it were innocuous, perhaps that wouldn't be necessary), but it's not; the inevitable result of sin is death. So God does not need to "wipe out" sinners, but save them. Those who refuse to be saved will suffer the inevitable result of their sin.



He "tasted" death (or "suffered" it, as EGW puts it). You're correct that technically Jesus didn't die the second death, since no one rises from that death, but that He "tasted" it is clear from many passages of Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy. From Scripture, there are quite a lot of Psalms, for example, which speak to this, some famous ones being 22, 69, and 88.

In the SOP, the Chapters of "Calvary" and "It Is Finished" bring this out, as well as many other passages. In particular, the paragraph I quoted above deals with the theme that death (not sleep, but death) was not understood until Jesus died, and had God allowed Satan and his followers to die before this had been seen, a doubt could have arisen regarding God's character.

Happy to help, but I mentioned several things. I'm not sure what "this precise issue" that you're referring to is. What is it you are saying is hard for you to grasp and have a complete understanding of?

So, when Adam physically died at the age of 930, that was enough to satisfy the "wages" of sin? No other kind of death was required?

Hi Richard and Tammy,

I think the "better understanding" is deeply rooted in the Great Controversy. In the Protestant version of the atonement we are on trial and God is the judge. In the GC version God places all of the evidence out in the open and puts Himself on trial in the minds of the whole universe.

In the Protestant atonement God judges us, but in the GC we judge the principles of God's kingdom vs. the principles of Satan's kingdom and we either side with God or with Satan.

It is a battle of ideas or principles. Satan has lied about God's integrity and cast a shadow on His trustworthiness. He has made God out to be petty, arrogant, arbitrary, manipulative, and one who murders His enemies. Jesus, OTOH, presented a God who loves and works for the salvation of His enemies even at the cost of His own reputation and life.

My atonement model is Christus Victor where Christ's substitutionary roll was at the incarnation. He became sin for us simply means that Christ took on humanity along with all of its liabilities. After 4000 years of degeneration Christ comes to this earth and reveals a God who is compassionate with our grief and suffering, One who forgives with both arms, One who loves His children unconditionally and grieves over our predicament. He comes to earth as a man because God gave this earth to the human race and to take back control would be to make Him a liar. So He enters our humanity, defeats Satan at his own game, and becomes the new representative (substitute) of everyone who will believe in Him and submit to His Kingship.

He defeats Satan and his lies and then dies the death that sin brought on all of us, our death, but the grave can't hold Him so in the resurrection He even defeats death and offers a resurrection to all men who will believe and trust Him.

The legal issue in Christus Victor is over God's right to take over this earth once His word had given it to man. Christ is called Shiloh which means "He who has the right". In the form of God He had no right, but through His willing humility He took our flesh, left heaven and all of its glory, and risked everything by becoming a man to have the right to win some (possibly only one) of us back. He would have taken the risk for only one sinner! What a God we serve!

It's time to cast off the Evangelical gospel (come out of Babylon) and embrace the good news that Jesus taught!

scott

Are you asking whether or not God was satisfied with that or if Adam wasn't repentant then God needed to burn him a while and inflict some physical pain on him to satisfy justice.

Or maybe if Adam is saved God needs to inflict a little pain and suffering on His Son so that the violent demands of the law are satisfied. Of course since the law is a transcript of God's character one could say that God demands violent physical punishment to satisfy His sense of justice.

Have you ever considered the fact that our punishment for sin is exactly what we consider as just? Jesus did say that we will be judged by the same criteria that we judge others. Could it be that our punishment will be the same as we would inflict on others if we were judge and jury?

Just a thought!

scott

I was refering to the '2nd death'. To me the 2nd death was always the result of the process at the Heavenly Tabernacle in which God judges who will go to the lake of fire. All who have accepted Christ and the offer of eternal life would be covered by His righteousness and get the first ressurection and would go up and look through the heavently books to see that God was just in how He judged each person. All others were basically left for the process of eternal death in which they were raised up after the 1000 years so they also could see that God is just and then go to the lake of fire or '2nd death'.

Thanks for the clarification Richard.

It looks to me that you may be operating from a model that looks like this:

a.God decides who will be in each resurrection
b. God treats the people of each resurrection differently

Clearly a) is true, but I don't think b) is. I agree with the model that Scott presented.

I think what destroys the wicked is that they, by refusing to respond to God's overtures through the Holy Spirit, so damage their own character that God's mere presence becomes to them a consuming fire. God treats them just as well as the righteous, but they hate God, they hate His principles, and being around God, or anyone like Him, they find to be extremely undesirable.

So I see the second death as being that which is the result of people whose minds have been warped by sin coming in contact with the God who is love, and having Him fully revealed to them. The reason this revelation destroys them is because a full revelation of God means a full revelation of self.

Yes, that is the premise that my friend was leaning to, that the wicked are destroyed by God's mere presence which becomes to them a all consuming fire or a lake of fire, but Revelation 20 says 'lake of burning sulphur'.....


Revelation 20
The Thousand Years
1And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

Satan's Doom
7When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The Dead Are Judged
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Actually, the righteous do suffer a permanent kind of death. The difference is that the righteous experience the permanent death before probation closes, and the wicked after.

No. The punishment for sin, or consequences if you prefer, is the inability to coexist with God, the source of life. Those who have sin cannot have God simultaneously.

The lack of God, or separation if you prefer, causes the broken heart, not the other way around. All men, including Jesus, have been separated from God at one time or another. The big difference is that Jesus felt it keenly, while most of us don't mind.

Now, my turn for a question. Do you believe that the AG 172.3 statement is true?

Did Jesus bear the punishment of the guilty?

Ok, I agree with this, providing the lake of fire is not literal (at the time the wicked are suffering). That is, I don't believe the wicked suffer for many hours or days (as the SOP puts it) in a lake of literal fire, as literal fire would kill someone in a matter of seconds, so one would have to postulate that God was supernaturally keeping them alive so that He could cause them to suffer excruciating pain, which sounds much more like something Satan would do than God.

This is good! (providing we're thinking along the same lines here, which I think is likely).

I agreed with your post #101260 too.

Na, God doesn't treat the lost differently in that day - as regards his attitude, since it is they who are different - they have treated him differently than the righteous treated God. It's akin to thinking that the last generation of saints, who experience the "measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph 4:13 RSV), are saved in a different way to previous generations of saints. God is graceous also, so judgement - settled once probation is closed! - is based on grace: those who avail themselves of Christ's grace by the faith of Jesus shall be judged according to God's graceous promise of redemption in Jesus (Rom 3:24); those who reject Christ's grace by unbelief are condemned already (John 3:18).

Having placed themselves outside of grace, justice remains, and is seen in the end - and accepted by all...even Satan himself, but God isn't different toward the lost, since they were included in Christ's graceous redemption of his life and death - which they spurned. Their ultimate separation from God doesn't kill them, but is self-selected mental torture - aided by shock! Their separation commences before Satan rallies them, so standing in God's presence doesn't destroy them directly: it is written that fire comes down both to destroy the wicked and....cleanse the earth! Malachi states that the redeemed shall walk on the ashes of the wicked.

God doesn't treat the wicked differently from Richard and my point of view.

A couple of clarifying questions:

Does this fire which destroys the wicked destroy them in a moment? Or do they suffer for many hours or many days after this fire comes upon them?

I find it interesting that the Abyss is not really a bottomless pit, but the desolate earth, the chain is not a real chain, but a chain of circumstances, the dragon and the serpent are not real dragons or serpents, but the devil, that Satan isn’t really bound with the chain, but just doesn’t have anyone to tempt, the beast is not a real beast, but a religious/political persecuting power, Gog and Magog are not real places of battle, but represent the final showdown between good and evil, the books are not necessarily books, but record keeping technology, death and the grave that are thrown into the lake of fire aren’t really thrown into the lake of fire, but simply represent Christ’s total victory over the consequences of Satan and sin, forever and ever doesn’t mean forever and ever, but just until they are burned up, but:

The lake of fire and the 1000 years absolutely mean a literal lake of fire and a literal 1000 years.

Very interesting!

scott

Yes! He did it at the cross and all during His life. Christ was a mortal man subject to death because of a choice Adam made for his whole family. He bore the brunt of the consequences of sin and even died a violent death demonstrating how dangerous and lethal sin and sinners are.

So if Christ bore our guilt then who punished Christ for the guilt He bore for us? God? Satan? Wild and crazy sinners? Who?

scott

Hi Colin,

Again I find you very hard to understand. First of all how does one “avail themselves of God’s grace”? Grace is God’s disposition toward sinners. He is graceful towards us. He doesn’t hold our sins against us, He forgives us, He does everything possible to draw us to Himself. Grace is not a noun, but an adjective describing God’s character. God is graceful. To avail one’s self of God’s grace is simply to accept the fact that God is forgiving and accept His forgiveness. We don’t control God by distributing His grace or manipulating it by the way we act. God is just as graceful to the unrepentant as the repentant because grace is not something God doles out to some and withholds from others.

Also to “place themselves outside of grace” is to reject the fact that He is graceful. It is to believe He is other than Christ demonstrated. And the “justice” that remains for those who have rejected God’s gracefulness is not something that changes God. God’s justice is an expression of His grace just as much as His kindness and mercy.

My point is that God doesn’t have to do anything, but present the truth about Himself! He demonstrates His gracefulness to the whole world and some accept the truth about Him as revealed in Christ and other reject it and believe Satan version of God instead. The judgment simply reveals our choices. Who do we worship? God or Satan? And the destruction of the wicked is simply an expression of the consequences of the reality of the judgment. If we worship the true God we enter eternal life and if we worship Satan (disguised as God) then we enter eternal damnation. Satan has no power to give life to those who choose him. Who we are willing to worship determines our choice in the judgment.

The judgment determines who loves God's image or Satan's image. In the end God turns us loose to the God we love!

scott

Scott, you bring up an important point that it was throughout His entire life that Christ bore the punishment of the guilty.

Here's a thought from Waggoner which touches on this:



From Ellen White:



From Fifield:



I find this last from Fifield unspeakably beautiful. I'll never forget the first time I read this, over 15 years ago now (hard to believe how time flies).

Scott, just a nit, but I think you mean "gracious," not "graceful." "Gracious" means:



"Gracious" means:



or



I know what you mean, though. Full of grace!

I'm asking if that physical death was the full "wages of sin" that Paul was talking about in Rom 6:23.


Not likely. God pronounced a woe on both those who call evil good, and those who call good evil. The punishment is based on what God thinks, not what we think.

If you're thinking along the lines of Romans 6, then we're in the same neighborhood.

Really!

What about these texts:

Matthew 6:12
Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

Luke 6:37
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Luke 7:47
Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."


2 Corinthians 2:10
If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake,

Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18:18
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The judgment has to be based on what those being judged think. Both the Scriptures and the SOP tell us that every knee will bow, every tongue confess the righteousness of God. This requires that the judgment be based on what those being judged think.

Another way of seeing this is that the one being judged must acknowledge the rightness of what God is showing them, or else the judgment will be forced upon them, as opposed to acknowledge by them. People are not judged against their will. The acknowledge the truth, and agree with the judgment.

For example:



Note the underlined part. Their exclusion from heaven is *voluntary*. This requires that their judgment be based on their thought. Otherwise it wouldn't be voluntary, but forced upon them.

Well, that depends on what you think the "punishment of the guilty" is. What do you think is the punishment for sin, which Jesus bore "at the cross and all during His life"?

Yes, really.

Not one or all of those verses give you or me sovereignty. Here's a verse for you:

The Son is the Judge. He's qualified because He is God. Don't be fooled into thinking that we creatures can be like the Most High in that regard.

If we keep that in mind, we will read your verses without reading into them that somehow we get to be in charge. Instead, we see how Christians are so submitted to God that their thoughts become like His thoughts, their wills are submerged in His will. That is our high calling.

If we accept your statement that "our punishment will be the same as we would inflict on others if we were judge and jury" then he who will accept wickedness in another will be allowed to have wickedness in himself. But we know that's not how the story turns out. God is a consuming fire to sin, regardless of how you feel about it, or how you would deal with it if you were in charge.

God's character determines how sin is addressed. That is not going to change. The only question is if you and I are willing to be transformed into conformity with His character. Either we are congruent with Him and we live forever, or we are incongruent with Him and we die.

That is because, by that time, their eyes are open to the facts, which God knew all along. The consequences are not influenced by what the condemned think. Rather, what the condemned think is changed by undeniable evidence to match what God thinks. And after all that, they will finally agree with God - sin and life can coexist only at the cost of misery and suffering; the merciful wages of sin is eternal death. When they realize that, they will welcome death as a respite, rather than spending eternity with One they hate.

I think that sin is lethal and without the presence of God to pump life into the sinner (probation) the insanity of selfishness would first destroy all those around the sinner and then turn on himself. All God has to do to destroy sinners is to leave them to their own folly. If Christ proved anything it is that sinners left to themselves are lethal. The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God and all God has to do to punish sinners is to give them what they have demanded. That God leave them alone and let them do things their way. The way of the sinner is death.

So what do you think the punishment for sin is and who is it that executes the punishment? Who demands death for the sinner and who is in charge of making sure the sinner dies?

scott

I only interpreted Christ words. He told us that if we forgive we will be forgiven and that we are judged by the same criteria that we judge others. If Jesus set it up that way why would you think that because I believe Jesus that I think I’m like the Most High? If you build straw men it is easy to tear them down. If you deal with the text it makes much more sense.



So how does Christ punish the sinner? According to you all Christ would have to do is leave the sinner alone. I agree! There is no necessity for God to cast anyone into an ocean of fire to eliminate sin and unrepentant sinners. If God has to do something to destroy sin then sin is not lethal, but an alternate life style that God doesn’t approve of.



I don’t think that the unrepentant sinners in the end will die from a broken heart because God leaves them. They can't wait to get out of His presence. I think they will turn on each other in desperation and anger. They will destroy themselves proving that God was right when He said that the wages of sin is death.


If God the Father judges no man then are you saying that it is Christ who pronounces judgment and decides what our punishment is?

If so then Christ’s words that I quoted take on a very special significance. He said that we judge ourselves by the way we judge others and that we are forgiven if we forgive others. In another place He said that light came into the world and that the light was the light of the world, but some men preferred darkness. Didn’t Jesus teach that we judge ourselves by the way we accept or reject Jesus’ revelation of the Father?

Jesus said in John 17:3 that to know God was eternal life and it is clear from the scriptures that the purpose of Christ’s mission on earth was to reveal the Father so that men would see His love and be reconciled to Him. So wouldn’t a rejection of Christ’s revelation of the Father determine our judgment? And wouldn’t God’s presence withdrawing from those who rejected Jesus be their punishment?

scott

Arnold, there's more to what Jesus taught!:



also



It's true Jesus taught the Father will not judge us, but He *also* taught that He will not judge us. Our judgment is not an arbitrary thing that God, or Jesus, does to us because of His sovereignty, but we pronounce judgment against ourselves according to how we have responded to Jesus' words, which is simply the truth.

To put is simply, sin is deadly, and we need to respond to the love of God reveled by Jesus Christ to be healed from its deadly effects. These are the words of Christ, words of truth, which He spoke. He revealed the Father. This was His whole mission, the revelation of the Father, given that we might be set right with God. If we open our hearts and respond, we will be saved (healed). If we refuse, we will be lost, not because God arbitrarily pronounces something against us, or does something bad to us, but because by rejecting His salvation (healing) which comes by way of responding to the revelation of God's character (the whole purpose of His mission) we shut ourselves off from the grace of God which alone can save us.

Amen Tom!

And how about this famous quote from Jesus: "God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world, through Him, might be saved."
1) God doesn't judge us or condemn us.
2) God left all judgment to the Son.
3) Jesus doesn't judge us.
4) Jesus' words judge us by the way we either accept or reject Him.

It sounds to me that we better be pretty sure we know what it means to believe Jesus' gospel. Jesus' words are very important for our salvation and since we have established that His main purpose in coming was to reveal the Father I would say we better accept His revelation of the Father.

It is sad that many still choose the Papal/Calvinist view of the atonement rather than what Jesus taught was the purpose of His coming and dying.

scott


scott

sorry, I must have double posted!

I'm sorry, but in my mind, you are making it way to complex and complicated. It seems so simple and clear to me....the Bible gives the definition of the 2nd Death and tells us clearly what kind of people will die that death. It honestly seems blasphemous to me, to say that Christ died the 2nd Death.

1.Is it blasphemous to say that Christ was made to be sin for us? Isn't that a much stronger statement than saying that Christ tasted death for us? Or that He suffered the death that was ours?

2.Scripture tells us He was "numbered among the transgressors." He died a shameful death, the death of one accursed of God, even the death of the cross. This also sounded like blasphemy to those who heard it. It was the "scandal" of the cross.

3.It's true that Christ didn't "die" the second death, which is a death without resurrection, but He "tasted" it, He "suffered" it.

From the SOP, the last few chapters of the chapter "It Is Finished" (page 764) deal with this. These paragraphs makes no sense if Christ's death was not connected with the destruction of the wicked. None at all. Why would she be talking about the destruction of the wicked in a chapter which is dealing with the meaning of Christ's death if Christ's death did not explain their destruction?

4.Where's the complication? Christ "suffered the death that was ours that we might live the life that was His." This seems simple. The idea is that if Christ had not suffered the death He did, we would have instead. What death would we have suffered? It has to be some death we don't ordinarily suffer, or else the sentence doesn't make any sense. What death can that be?

And you say that Jesus "did it at the cross and all during His life"? Jesus was separated from God at the cross and all during His life?

If you put your hand in a magnesium fire, who demands or makes sure that you get burned? Nobody has to demand or make sure of it. Regardless, your hand will get burned. Why? Because that's the way things are. And it will happen that way whether or not you believe it or agree with it.

In the final analysis, the death of the sinner depends on God's actions. If God separates from the sinner, he dies because of lack of life. If God comes into the presence of the sinner, he dies because God is a consuming fire to sin. That's just the way it is.

The bottom line is that God and sin cannot coexist. But sin and death always go together, just like God and life always go together. One must choose which one he wants to cling to.

I agree with several of your main points, Arnold. Especially the "that's the way things are" idea. I have a few questions, however.



Agreed up to here.



What one believes is a part of the way things are. That is, what happens to one includes what they believe. It's part of what makes things that are "the way they are" that way. E.g., the exclusion of the wicked from heaven is voluntary with themselves. They choose not to be there. Why? Because of what they believe.



I agree with the "that's the way it is" part, but it seems to me your conclusion as to who the death depends on is not correct.



This brings out that the death of the wicked is *not* dependent upon God's actions, but dependent upon the actions of the wicked. She makes this point half a dozen times in these paragraphs. This is why God is innocent of the charges Satan brought upon God. If God had "left" Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, it would not have appeared that this was what? The "inevitable result of sin." It would have appeared, instead, that this was something which was a result of God's actions as opposed to their own. The death of Christ revealed the truth about sin and God. Sin causes death, not God.



This is true. But given that it is the wicked, and not God, who choose what they cling to, why would the death of the wicked depend upon God's actions? If death is the inevitable result of sin, and they choose sin, doesn't it follow that they are choosing death? God's actions are simply to allow the wicked to have what they have chosen.

Tammy,

I think you better check with Al on this one. To reject the penal paradigm is not a light thing.

Amen Tammy,
It is a dangerous thing to take a stand against Papal authority when it comes to the doctrine of the atonement.

Best check with the clergy!!!

scott

Not in the case of a magnesium fire. Regardless of what you believe, you will get burned.

The same thing with God. Regardless of what you believe, He is a consuming fire to sin.

I don't know what to say Arnold, aside from repeating what I wrote earlier. What people believe is fuel for the fire, to use your analogy.

I'd be interested in your response to the points I made.

Obviously, you don't understand my analogy. People's beliefs as fuel for the fire is not part of my analogy. If that's what you want to talk about, that would be your hand in my analogy.

The "belief" in my analogy, is one's belief as to the consequences of putting one's hand in a magnesium fire. In that case, regardless of your belief, a burn is what you will get.

That represents the belief that the consequences of sin are somehow linked to what you believe they will be. E.g. if you believe that sin should be ignored, your judgment of the matter should have some effect on what God will actually do when the time comes. It doesn't.

You took me out of context.

Another possibility could be that I understood it, but didn't agree with it.



This is what I disagreed with.



I understood this. However, in regards to the wicked, what one believes is critical, so the analogy, IMO, doesn't work well.



I didn't take you out of context. I just didn't think your analogy worked well. Your idea is that what someone believes is immaterial. What will happen is what will happen regardless. However, I believe that what happens is predicated precisely by what one believes. The exclusion of the wicked from heaven is "voluntary." It is something they choose, because of what they believe.

I'd still be interested in your response to the points I made. In particular, the points related to DA 764 would be good to comment on, if you don't wish to respond to each point.

Either you understand my analogy better than I do, or I understand my analogy better than you do. What I quoted above is so NOT what I'm talking about.

It's very simple, if you are willing to hear what I am saying, rather than what you would really like me to say. Mix extremely high heat with flesh, and the flesh will burn. Your opinion about it, or anyone else's, is immaterial. Period. Do not put into it what I am not saying, then you will understand it better.

Now, would you like to know how my analogy explains what I'm talking about, or would you like to continue to say that my analogy is not what YOU are talking about?

Perhaps you believe that the sinner's opinion on how sin should be addressed determines how things turn out. If so, go ahead and defend the position; we can discuss it. But if you think my analogy in any way addressed the topic of why the lost are lost, you are mistaken. It's that simple.


If you really want to put that in the analogy, that would be the fool voluntarily putting his hand in the fire. His burn would be his voluntary choice, because he voluntarily put his hand in the fire.

Don't get caught up in the phrase "2nd Death." There are only 2 deaths, so anything that is not the 1st is the 2nd, and vice versa.

The wages of sin is death. The soul that sins will die. One fundamental question is: Which death are we talking about here?

Going to the SOP, we find these:
What is the "wrath of God against transgression"? What is the "divine justice" that Christ suffered? Was she talking about the 1st death or 2nd? Or something else?


Actually, it is more glorious. Consider this (thanks to a friend who supplied the insight).


There is a death that includes only the body, and there is a different kind of death that includes the soul. What Jesus experienced included the soul.

Is that blasphemy? No. It is just the fact that the soul that sins shall die. True, Jesus did not sin. But Jesus was made sin for us, He took upon Himself all of our sins. And as we saw from DA 686, He suffered the consequences of our sin - the death of the soul.

Why is that more glorious? I'll continue next time.

Arnold, this is exactly what I said! Look:

Me: "Your idea is that what someone believes is immaterial. What will happen is what will happen regardless."

You: "Mix extremely high heat with flesh, and the flesh will burn. Your opinion about it, or anyone else's, is immaterial."

How is this not saying the same thing? In what way do you think I'm not hearing what you're saying?

Arnold, please take a look at my post #101293 and respond to the points I made there.

I will get back to that. I just want to straighten this out first.


Actually, to be more accurate, you are hearing more than I am saying. You said:
You are talking about our beliefs being part of the reason, if not the only reason, why the lost are lost. But the fact is that I am not talking about that.

Here's what I'm talking about: Put your hand in a magnesium fire and you will get burned, no matter what your opinion about it is. Period.

Do you agree with me on that? Or do you hold that your beliefs will somehow keep your flesh from burning?

Let me put the complete paragraph as I originally wrote it for reference:

1) The first part of Romans 6 tells us that we must die in the likeness of Christ's death. The death that Paul was saying we must all experience is death to sin. Should our death to sin be a permanent death, or temporary? Most, if not all, of us here would agree that we must die to sin permanently. That is the likeness of Christ's death.

2) The promise is that all who die in the likeness of Christ's death will be raised in the likeness of His resurrection. Jesus died as the worst of all sinners, having taken humanity's sins upon Himself. But He took that sin into the permanent death, nevermore to return. When He came back, it was without sin. So with us, we die to sin permanently, then we are raised to walk in newness of life, the new life of faith, submission, and obedience to God. We leave that sin behind forever.

3) Raising one from the 1st death is easy compared to raising one from the 2nd death. Several prophets and apostles did it. But Jesus was raised from the 2nd death, being raised without the shackles of sin. This resurrection only God does. This is what He promised to do for us in Romans 6.

4) The 2nd death is the only death that sufficiently shows God's hatred for sin. It is not good enough for Him to put sin aside temporarily. The way God will deal with sin is to eradicate it permanently, never to return. That's His promise. Sin will not arise a 2nd time.

5) God loved Jesus, there is no question there. But because Jesus took upon Himself our sin, He was subject to God's wrath and died the 2nd death. That reveals to us, like nothing else, that God hates sin with a perfect hatred. But if you cling to it, even if He loves you as He loves His Son, you will die permanently. In one act, God shows us His hatred of sin as He shows us His love for all, including the lost, by taking the death we deserve.

Yes, that is interesting. I think you have a point there.

But then, Jesus will literally come here, and He will literally raise the dead, and He will literally make a New Earth, yes?

This is beyond me, I don't understand terms such as these...Of course I believe that Jesus died for all...and she says, But, I don't understand what this all has to do with which death Jesus died. Why make it so complex and complicated? We have a simple Bible definition of the 2nd Death. I can't, for the life of me, understand how anyone can truly believe that Jesus died the death of the lost person.

Does this sound like the description of those who die the 2nd Death?

I took it to my 'round table' of bible scholars at church and we went over it, and the consensus was that Christ's death was of a eternal nature as far as He could see, because he set aside his divinity and thus if He had sinned, it would have been eternal death for Him (a death with sin that would have destroyed both soul and body in hell). So he faced the same death we do, one which could lead to eternal life or eternal death, and he triumph over what would have been a eternal death if He had sin and extends that victory to us.

This is the way I see it too. We are conceived, born, and steeped in sin our whole lives until we are born again. Our natural birth finds us separated from God believing that God is our enemy. We have a selfish nature and until we meet God and surrender to His love we can no more stop sinning that we can grow wings and fly. Even the things men do that are perceived as good have a selfish motive and are sin. Without God’s intervention we would perish for eternity having spent our whole life captive to sin and Satan.

When Jesus was born He was not born separate from the Father. He was born “born again” full of the Holy Spirit and in full communication with the Father. So how can the NT tell us that He was born like us? How can Christ claim to have experience our suffering and how can He claim to comfort us and know our plight? How can He affiliate with men if He was born above them, in a higher spiritual state, and never experienced being separated from God?

My answer is Gethsemane and the Cross! Christ experienced the severing of His last link with heaven that night before the cross. What was His only hold on heaven, His only advantage over us during His life, the only thing that made Him different than a mere man? A relationship of love and trust with the Father and living in constant communication and in the presence of God.

Sin so slowly separated man from God that we don’t even notice the heart break. Like putting a frog in a pot full of cold water and turning on a slow flame. The frog adjusts to the water until boiled to death. Jesus, OTOH, experienced the same separation from the Father, which we have lived with since our conception, the night of His crucifixion, thus completing His human experience. He bore our sorrow and our grief in every way so that we know we have a compassionate High Priest who can succor us and comfort us and bring us back to the Father. Jesus knows what it is like to be abandoned to the insanity of sinners with no hope of physical rescue. This is where I see as Him tasting eternal death. Not experiencing the eternity of the death, but experiencing the enormity of emotions not being able to see through the veil of death, no hope for rescue, no comforting from Father, no communications, but depending only on the relationship of trust build during a life time of communion with the Father. Jesus knew His Father’s love and He put His trust in that love, never putting His trust in what was happening right then and there.

Only those who know God intimately and love and trust who He is will have an assurance of salvation. But don’t think Satan won’t do everything to get you to believe you are alone and abandoned of God. God was right there with His Son every second, but Jesus had placed Himself in the hands of sinners and between the cries of the insane men and the demons crawling all over Him God’s presence was shut out in every physical sense. Jesus felt totally alone, but knew, from a lifetime relationship with the Father, that He could commend the final outcome to His trusted Father. What ever happened; Jesus knew that His Father loved Him. And we too have, through Jesus, that same assurance.

scott

Arnold, regarding #101305, you are insisting "I am not talking about that." I know you weren't. I never said you were. I was. I was expressing *my* opinion. I understood that my opinion was different than yours. I wasn't saying my opinion was yours. I never disagreed with the idea that if one puts one's hand in a fire that it will get burned regardless of one's beliefs.

I don't understand where whatever misunderstanding you think there is here took place. I hope this is settled and we can discuss post #101293.

I agree, Tammy!

Jesus never suffered the emotion of the eternally lost because He knew His Father’s love. His life was so tied to the Father that He accepted whatever fate would come because of His knowledge of God’s goodness. Jesus couldn’t see through the portal of death. He had no physical evidence that He would be rescued or resurrected. He only had his past fellowship with the Father to get Him through. He had an intimate loving trust for His Father. That is what got Jesus through! He had a relationship with the Father and He loved goodness and hated the evil around Him. Jesus would not join the evil even to save His life. He would not call out for an angelic rescue because He knew he must give a full demonstration of God’s love so that the hardest to convince, among men, would have no excuse.

Jesus loved sinners and stayed all the way to the end because He could do nothing else. He was willing to die before He was willing to kill others so that He could live. Isn’t this the exact opposite of selfishness and the survival of the fittest? Men kill others so that they can live, but God gives His live so that others might live.

scott

Hi Arnold,

Jesus’ literal 2nd coming is one of the most common themes of the NT. If, OTOH, it was only mentioned once or twice in the Revelation I probably wouldn’t believe it was literal.

We have lots of different spiritual fires burning in the Bible, but we insist that the one in the prophetic book of Revelation is literal.

scott

But it's not. That's the misunderstanding.

I think He did suffer it. What got Him through the experience was His knowledge of His Father's love. He chose faith over feelings, but His feelings were those of the lost; all black clouds, with no hope of sun. Many Psalms bring out the despair Christ felt on the cross. To name just 3, 22, 69, 88. They speak of His crying so much that He ran out of tears. His was a one-of-a-kind suffering.

There is comfort for us in His suffering. When sin causes pain in our lives, such as taking a loved one away, we can feel so alone, that there is no one who understands our pain and loneliness; but there is One! We can sojourn to the garden, or to the cross, with Him. He had to tread the path alone, so that we can be comforted.

Ok! Good! We are in agreement. Do you agree with post 101293 as well?

Hi Tom,
I think we are saying the same thing. That Christ was stripped of all physical, mental, and emotional touchstones and left only with His trust in God and love for us to keep Him on the cross!

My definition of faith is "intimate loving trust", but I am thinking about changing it to "an intimate love of goodness" or "an intimate love of righteousness".

scott

After your discussion over this, I don't think you agree.

The lost's beliefs about sin cannot essentially be correct, since they don't agree with God's truth: they think they're right. They're wrong, but their fate is right(eous), so annihilation of the wicked is God's correcting judgement - not their deluded perception of themselves. They only agree to stay away from heaven & God after they realise they were wrong. Their sinful beliefs cannot be the independent reason for their eternal death.

Belief has nothing to do with the end of sin & sinners, since they're wrong and their fate isn't. Once God has corrected their viewpoint, they agree he is right and their penalty for averting grace is divine.

Belief has nothing to do with judgement, so you don't agree.

Scott, I thought we might be saying the same thing too.

Robert Wieland defines faith as "a heart appreciation of the love of God, especially as revealed on the cross."

How do you like that one?

If they realize they are wrong, then they are being judged in a way they recognize as correct, which would have to be according to the standard of judgment they themselves have, or else they wouldn't recognize the validity of the judgment.



This can't be the case. The root of sin is unbelief. The inevitable result of sin is death. Their belief, or, more precisely unbelief, is precisely that which results in their death.



It's not just that they agree that He is right, but they want to have nothing to do with Him. They do no like God, nor His principles, nor those who love God and His principles, and choose to have nothing to do with Him or His followers. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God. It is not something forced upon them against their will, but what they choose. They wouldn't make such a poor choice if it weren't for their beliefs, primarily their beliefs about God and righteousness.



Well, I don't agree with you, but Arnold said:



So if Arnold says I was mistaken in understanding that our opinions were different, I have to accept what he says, don't I?

I love it!

Since the cross is God's ultimate revelation of love it make sense that our appreciation for the cross would cause us to love Him and long to be like Him. The law written on the heart!

scott

Here is a good understanding of how Christ was confronted by the 2nd death...
"...In Christ's death is no hint of the Saviour's effort to win the favor of the Father. With that favor already in hand, His confidence carried Him to Calvary, despite a shuddering of His human frame. Only on the cross, confronted by withdrawal of His Father's presence in revulsion against sin, did the stark break become clear. As the veil of our guilt fell over Him, there was expressed from His lips an agonizing cry, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46).
With this He slipped into the pit of the second death carrying the burden of rejection for rebellion against God. At that point He is in our place. His is the despair of lost sinners staring into a black hole of oblivion, devoid of hope. Standing in our place, "The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. (The Desire of Ages, p. 753). Death overtook Him as the abandoned sinner, alone, in the place where each of us really belongs....."

From:Why Did Jesus Die?
How God Saves Us
by George W. Reid, Former Director
Biblical Research Institute

I don't think this part works. God did not withdraw His presence from Christ! To the contrary, God drew near to Christ:



The statement that "He makes darkness His pavilion" is a reverence to Psalm 18.



This is a little known psalm of the cross. He poetically depicts God's leaving heaven to be with His Son. The Desire of Ages passage cited gives some more detail.

Many people think that God abandoned Christ, but He didn't. God was right there with Christ. The following speaks of Christ's experience:



Christ's experience is similar to the wickeds' in that in neither case does God forsake either the One or the other. It is the "sense of sin" that causes one to *feel* abandoned by God. Sin causes us to believe things that aren't true, which is part of what makes it lethal. The difference between Christ and the wicked is that Christ knew His Father's true character, and was able to work out by faith alone, apart from His senses, His feelings, all that was happening around Him, what was really happening. By faith, He knew God had *not* abandoned Him, and He died triumphantly, committing Himself to God. The wicked, not knowing God, will simply be overwhelmed by sin.

No. But neither does it sound like the 1st death. What it sounds like is the death of a faithful person.

However, THIS sounds like the 2nd death:
When the faithful die the 1st death, they go down knowing that they will be raised conquerors. They can see through the portals of the tomb. This was not Christ's experience.

Hi Richard,

G.W. Ried obviously believes that Christ died the second death, but does that make it so? I really like Ellen statement that he quoted. Notice how she says that it is "the veil of our guilt" that fell over Him.

Guilt is something we all carry simply because we sin and we are guilty, but most of us run from our guilt. We don’t face up to it, but find any way we can to avoid discussing it with others or even facing it alone.

There are two ways that I know of to face one’s guilt. The first is to admit we are guilty, confess to those we’ve harmed, and be willing to make amends. The second is to run until we are caught and forced to admit we are guilty. Courts are good at finding the truth.

Our guilt is in the fact that we sin. Adam might have started this whole mess, but I know that I’ve joined in his rebellion many times and done it willingly. So I’m guilty. But what is sin? It is to harm others and hurt God and others out of selfishness. It is to put “me” first at the cost of others. Jesus’ was not guilty, but placed Himself in the hands of pious murderers. Because we are guilty of sin we deserve to be left in the hands of sin and sinners. Our fate is to be destroyed by sin.

The wages of sin is death and sin pays the ultimate wage. Death by our own insane sin or death by the insanity of others. Jesus suffered the death caused by the insanity of others. He took our guilt in that He didn’t deserve any of this, but because He loves us He determined to experience the whole realm of humanity which included death. He did it so that we could relate to Him knowing that He understands our plight and has empathy and compassion. But most of all He died to give us the assurance of a resurrection.

Had Christ not been resurrected we would be most miserable. Our hope is in the fact that there is a resurrection and Christ promised all would be resurrected. In order to give us this hope . . . Jesus died willingly. Thus our guilt drove Him, out of love, to experience our death so that we could have the hope of the resurrection.

This idea that Jesus was a sin capacitor who somehow collected the whole of human guilt and responsibility is ridiculous. Sin happens in the mind and is expressed in our words and deeds. Jesus couldn’t take our literal sins on Himself. So now some say He didn’t take our sins, but the condemnation for our sins was laid on Him.

What kind of justice system, what kind of jury, what kind of public would accept the innocent being punished in the place of the guilty???? Jesus became sin for us in taking on the whole human experience. In the incarnation He experienced the human birth and a life of woe, betrayal, loneliness, and emotional pain. In His death He experienced our death, but the grave couldn’t hold Him and in His resurrection He gave us the hope of eternal life. Now He sits on His throne in the human glorified body for eternity as our representative and King, our divine substitute.

scott

Actually, it would have been closer to what I was thinking if I had said that the death of the wicked is dependent on God's nature. Things are the way they are because God is the way He is.

But let's explore God's actions for a moment. (Yes, God's actions are determined by His nature, but amuse me for now. )

Can God keep someone alive who has irrevocably chosen to separate from Him? Yes, He can. He has done it with Satan.

Let's say that sinners, if left to themselves, will kill each other. How could God prevent them from dying off? He could quarantine everyone from everyone else. So, you have a universe full of sinners who are separated from each other, and God keeps alive even if they are separated from Him. Thus, everyone stays alive.

Is that scenario possible?

I think Rosangela found the source where EGW says that Christs connection to the Father was (for the only time ever, and never again) 'sundered' so there was a complete seperation as Christ died at the cross...I will check if I can find it again or if Rosangela can repost it...

Main Entry: sun·der
Pronunciation: \ˈsən-dər\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): sun·dered; sun·der·ing \-d(ə-)riŋ\
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gesundrian, syndrian; akin to Old High German suntarōn to sunder, Old English sundor apart, Latin sine without, Sanskrit sanutar away
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
: to break apart or in two : separate by or as if by violence or by intervening time or space
intransitive verb
: to become parted, disunited, or severed
synonyms see separate

Here it is......

I agree with this. It's a good thing God is the way He is.



The DA quote cited says:



So God cannot leave the sinner to reap the full result of his sin, or the sinner dies. Had God done that, His actions, which would have been a passive action, would have been misunderstood as an active action, and His character would have been misunderstood. It would have appeared that God was the monster Satan was accusing him of being, and that God got rid of Satan to protect Himself, because Satan was right in his accusations.

So God has allowed things to play out so that His character can be seen in contrast to Satan, as well as the principles of His government in contrast to the principles of Satan's government.

So, yes, God can keep someone alive by not leaving them to reap the result of their choice. However, God cannot do that indefinitely, as this would be contrary to His nature. Why? At least two reasons come to mind.

1.Sin is misery, and it is contrary to God's character to have beings be miserable for no purpose.
2.If God has created us with free will, and we choose sin, then God needs to respect our choice and let us die, which is the inevitable result of sin.



Your comments here reminded me of something I heard from A. Graham Maxwell. Fortunately I was able to find it (living in the internet age has its plusses):



As to whether the scenario is possible, I addressed that above (the two points above).

The prison scenario certainly doesn't seem in harmony with God's character, does it? Have you read "The Great Divorce" by C. S. Lewis?

But you are both aware, are you not, that Elder Wieland also holds to the legal requirement for forgiveness that Christ fulfilled, joining the church position on one of its correct points, as Richard showed...aside from demonstrating agape.

As for George Reid's article, it is clearly necessary for Christ to have felt rejected of God and man, to have had no hope of rising from the dead: the matter of trusting memory of his Father's presence in his own, previous experience isn't disputed - he held on to his faith. The actuality of God removing his presence from his Son, their divine $ Spirit from Jesus' divine & human consciousness, doesn't prevent God being heart broken himself and concerned by Jesus' spiritual suffering. Course God can dwell and hide in darkness, but Jesus didn't feel him there, even when he commended his breath to him: tasting death for everyman requires suffering separation till death. God coming close in divine concern doesn't change Jesus' experience of legal and necessary separation till death.

Since you don't agree, despite it being in the Bible and SOP, that's your problem, not ours: the whole picture of redeeming us from the law's curse must be included, not just the nice sounding bits. God does punish sin, we being saved from his wrath by his Son suffering it.

That's why I prefaced my scenario the way I did. We agree that God's actions are determined by His nature/character.

But let's suspend that for a moment and consider what I'm asking: Is God able to keep the sinner alive in spite of his sin? IOW, was GM right that his "prison warden" scenario was a possibility?

My answer is Yes, because as GM pointed out, He has done it with Satan all these years. What's your answer?

No, I've never come across "The Great Divorce" by Lewis.

That's exactly how I see the final eradication of sin playing out. God is near the sinner, sorrowing over him, as he suffers the inevitable consequences of his choice. It will probably be something like how David felt after Absalom died.

I doubt Scott is. I'm aware of Elder Wieland's thoughts on this. I'm spoken to him quite a bit about it.



Colin, you state this is "my problem" and not yours, and claim your idea is both in the Bible and in the SOP, yet you present nothing from either source, whereas I did, from both.

I'd say it's "possible" in the sense that God could have created us without free will, in the sense that God is physically able to do such a thing. But not possible in the sense of being something He might actually do.



Lewis presents a scenario where people keep moving further and further away from one another, because they can't stand one another. There are buses which go to heaven, which they can visit, but they hate it there.



Amen! I see it this way too. Something like how David felt, but much more profound, and much more profound as God's love for us is greater than David's love was for Absalom.

We agree, then. God can keep us safe from sin by isolating all sinners. God can do it, but will not.

Instead, what God has chosen to do to keep us safe from sin is to extinguish sin, and to His great sorrow, all who foolishly choose to hold on to that sin. In that sense, the extermination of sinners is based on God's actions - His choice to eliminate rather than isolate.


And God, seeing how all this was going to turn out, did die for us. Now the question is, will we live for Him?

I would say the extermination of sinners is based on God's choice to allow His creatures to exercise free will. God gives them what they choose.

I agree with the "to His great sorrow" sentiment, and am glad you see it this way. I think that's very important to see.

Hold on, Scott. I need some clarification.

You said you agree with AG 172.3.
In fact, you said, "Yes! He did it at the cross and all during His life." Later, you added, "The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God..."

So, did Jesus suffer the punishment of the guilty?

Hi Arnold,

If the punishment is a natural consequence of sin then the statement makes sense. Jesus bore the consequences of our sin i.e. incarnation into mortality and death! OTOH, if the punishment is the death sentence issued from God’s court of law then the whole thought is outrageous.

I agree with the statement in the first sense. And “Yes! He did it at the cross and all during His life.” Christ lived out His life in the human predicament. And yes, “the punishment for sin is eternal separation from God,” with the exception of all those saved by Christ’s atonement, at one ment, reconciliation through the revelation of God’s love. Christ tore down the wall of that separated us from the Father and we laid down our defenses and let Him into our lives. Christ did nothing to change God or affect His love for us. Everything He did was to change our minds.

scott

I agree with what Scott said, believe there is an another aspect.



This speaks of how Christ bore the "grief of the ages." I believe something similar happened at the cross. Christ bore the "sin of the ages" in the same sense as He bore the "grief of the ages" when He wept at Lazrus' funeral.

It wasn't simply that the cross demonstrated man's evil heart, what sin does to those who give themselves up to it. It certainly did that, but it did more. It also demonstrated the impact of sin upon the sinner.

I can't even imagine how the God of the universe felt hanging on that cross! How hopeless did mankind look, how violent, how hateful, how depressing! Jesus had no assurance that anyone would even accept His death and reconcile with God. But He would have done it for just one of us.

scott

I don’t know how anyone could believe that what happened to Jesus that weekend was a death sentence issued from God’s court of law. If that were true then those killing Jesus actually were carrying out God’s direct order and God actually hired, or even commanded, the Jewish and Roman thugs to kill His Son.

And if we say that Jesus suffered the second death, in the place of those who are saved, then we have to admit that Jesus wasn’t burned alive by God’s fire for as long as we deserved, burning long enough to meet even the most vial of forgiven sinners, and feeling the pain right down to the last bit of melting flesh. God withdrew His protection and Jesus was turned over to crazed sinners just like the wicked will be in the end when they turn on Satan and then each other in an uncontrollable rage that ends in self destruction!

scott

Did Jesus experience the "eternal separation from God" which you consider as the punishment for sin?

When Adam sinned the consequences were loss of eternal life (mortality) and death. When Jesus incarnate into humanity He took on those liabilities. He didn’t stay dead! He conquered death for all of us. The grave couldn’t hold Him.

The problem we are having is that in order to see my view you have to think outside the penal box. God punishes the unrepentant wicked, but His punishment is not some emotional or physically pain or torture that He inflicts on the unsaved. God’s punishment is letting men have what they chose, giving them what they demand, and actually withdrawing his protections and His sane presence from them. He leaves them in their own collective hands and lets the power, bitterness, anger, and vengeance, the principles they love and live by play out with no calming influence from the Holy Spirit, no conviction of the conscience, no pangs of guilt, nothing to curb their anger and nothing to stop their insane violence. He gives them over to the god they worship and that god is Satan who has convinced them to love evil. Satan has become their God!

Jesus died the death of every man, first and second, because death is death. Jesus died so in that sense He tasted every man’s death and died because every man sinned. The only difference between the first death and the second is that there is no resurrection from the second death. In that sense it was impossible for Jesus to experience. And why should He need too. The people that experience it are not saved. Jesus’ resurrection promised every man, good and evil, a resurrection not just the saved. We are the ones who determine which resurrection we will come up in and we determine that during our life time by our choice to either love good or love evil.

Your question implies that God is the active agent in the punishment of the wicked and that their punishment of a violent death is directed and controlled by God therefore in order for Jesus to take our punishment, the punishment of the saved, He had to die eternally if eternal death was the punishment. On the contrary! Jesus suffered every man’s death, but those who place their trust in God have the promised of eternal life.

In my theology sin is shown to be the destructive power that it is. In your theology sin is an alternate life style that God disapproves of and will kill any one who disagrees with Him. God will not be mocked. He will not continue to support and nurture those intent on destroying all life. He will give them exactly what they ask for. Probation will end. He will stop sending His Spirit, giving them hope, giving them direction, curbing their violence. He will let them alone like they demand and let them become what they will. His pleadings will stop!

scott

I don't think this is true. In the first death, there is no "face to face" encounter with God. That's a big difference.

I wrote this as a reply to tom:

But in thinking about it both the saved and the unsaved have the same face to face encounter with God. The only difference is that the saved love and look forward to His coming, but the lost are so afraid that they call the rocks and trees to fall on them. They die of fear before He ever gets here. They hide from His face.

After the second resurrection they do face God again and listen to His recounting of all the times He tried to save them. As he pleads with them all they feel and hear is their guilt so when Satan comes along and tempts them to shut their ears to God and take their inheritance by force, the holy city, they gladly respond. Thus demonstrating that God's judgment was true and right and that there was nothing He could do for them. If they were resurrected a million time and given a million chances their characters are so damaged that they would respond a million times to Satan and ignore God's pleadings.

Just a thought,

scott

Scott,

After all that, including some assertions about my theology that I guarantee you cannot support with quotes from me, you still did not answer the question. It only needs Yes or No.

Did Jesus experience the "eternal separation from God" which you consider as the punishment for sin?

Strange that you would say that, since every time I answered your questions, you agreed with me, IIRC. Care to elaborate how you got to know my theology so well? And how you concluded that mine is different from yours, when you keep agreeing with my answers?

Scott, he seems to be agreeing with me too, so we may all (the three of us) be on the same page, or very nearly so anyway.

Oh the joys of the Internet! We can be in agreement, yet disagree anyway.

I only give yes or no answers when yes or no express my thoughts. A yes or no answer could misrepresent what I believe.

But I did answer your question. Jesus experienced separation from God very similar in some ways and very different in others to those who never rise again, but it is very obvious that the "eternal" part Jesus didn't experience even though He could have perceived the possibility and suffered the mental anguish of the possibility of eternity!

But, OTOH, one could easily say that Jesus suffered the death of the sinner. And one could easily say that Jesus tasted death for all men or that He tasted the 2nd death. The problem is in taking any description and making it say too much.

Where I disagree is in making what Jesus did a legal payment to God so that God had a legal right to forgive. If God demanded Jesus' death then God commissioned the executioners. Therefore the Jews and Romans who crucified Christ were working for God.

scott

Hi Arnold,

I have been under the impression that you advocate the penal view of the atonement. It was something that you said to Tammy:

If that is so then I do understand your theology very well. If not then please forgive me for assuming.

scott

Scott, Arnold hasn't said a lot, but he has been agreeing with what you and I have been saying. He said this:



Also this:



He's also said other things which indicate he believes the destruction of the wicked is a natural consequence of their choice, as opposed to something God imposes upon them because they haven't acted in some way (e.g., God destroys them because they didn't accept Christ as their personal Savior).

Tom, this Christus Victor idea that God's glory by itself glorifies the saints and annihilates the wicked, and that's all there is to it, plus Christ's death didn't secure legal permission to forgive guilt is inadequate. (It is guilt that is forgiven, since God does not forgive violation or rejection of his law - not forgive treason: Christ bore our condemnation & punishment of guilt - so may forgive it us by faith, etc., but he had to die for sin to deal with it - it requires sacrifice.)

"Remission of sin" is only by the shed life of the Lamb of God: that's your legal requirement for forgiveness. Law and reality are mutually inclusive: the law condemns sin because God does.

God imposes unnatural judgement with hell fire? "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." Don't challenge the Judge's just pronouncement!

It seems like your answer is Yes and No; there are similarities, but also differences.

Technically, that answer is No. For Jesus to have suffered the punishment of sinners, it had to be the same. If there were differences, then they were not the same.

But I believe that what Jesus suffered was the 2nd death "on steroids." Consider this: What if the 2nd death is simply complete separation from God? Aren't we all agreed that that's what the impenitent will experience? Moreover, isn't that what Jesus experienced?

But one big difference is that when creatures become completely separated from the Source of life, they die. Jesus, OTOH, had life in Himself, so divinity did not die. While the impenitent will momentarily feel the agony of being without God and then have the respite of death, what Jesus was looking at was eternal separation from God without dying. So while the wicked suffer the 2nd death for a short time, Jesus was willing to continue to suffer the 2nd death forever.

Even if I did hold to a penal paradigm, that doesn't mean you know what I'm saying. Especially since I haven't said it. As Tom pointed out, I haven't said much; that is by design. I'm keeping my comments on that topic to a minimum, because I think they should be addressed in the "Lesson 10" thread.

Even if you know well the theology of others who hold to the penal view, that still doesn't mean you know the theology of everyone who holds a penal view. Here's the logic so you can clearly see the fallacy:

Person A and Person B hold to the penal view.
Scott knows Person A's theology.
Therefore, Scott knows Person B's theology.

If one's paradigm of the atonement was all there was about theology, that might work. But there are many facets of theology. Consider my answers to the questions you asked me, and my exchanges with Tom. Does that match the sentiments of all the other people you've come across who hold a penal view?

Plus, the penal view is in the Bible, so outright rejection of it is nothing to sneeze at.

Anyway, as you said, "The problem is in taking any description and making it say too much."

Hi Colin,

If I may address this question you asked Tom; I don’t quite know where you are coming from with your question: “this Christus Victor idea that God's glory by itself glorifies the saints”.

What do you mean by “glorifies the saints”? What do you mean by “God’s glory by itself”?

And what do you mean by “that’s all there is to it”? All there is to what?

And where in the Bible do you get the idea that Christ died to secure a “legal permission to forgive guilt”. I’ve always thought that the idea of forgiveness was always one’s prerogative. Didn’t Jesus, by His nature, have the right to forgive without some higher authority’s permission? Do I need some “legal permission” to forgive someone who had done me wrong? Isn’t forgiveness something that happens inside the forgiver’s mind and to the forgiven? Why would Jesus need permission to forgive us?

If payments are made to secure forgiveness then is it really forgiveness?

There are many ways to see things, but sometimes the way we view one thing can block our view to seeing something else. You seem to be having difficulty understanding that God can punish, but punishment doesn’t have to be punitive. Most of the punishments we receive in our lives are simply natural consequences that we set in motion. Imagine setting up a 20’ high ladder on rocky sloped ground.

You are in such a hurry that you don’t bother to secure the top and so you load both arms full of tools and begin to climb the ladder balancing your knees against the rails and without using your hands to hold on. Now you get about 2/3 the way up the ladder and it begins to slide down the wall. Does gravity punish you? Whose fault is it that you hit the ground and broke your neck? What if God were to suspend gravity for a moment and suddenly place a pool of water right where you were to hit the ground? What if God did that for you 10 times hoping that you would learn to be more careful, gave ladder safety classes, warned you multiple times that He wouldn’t keep building the pond under you if you didn’t learn to be careful, and finally one day the pond wasn’t there! Who punished you? God . . . gravity . . . ignorance . . . the ladder manufacturer? God simply suspended your probation and you felt the full extent of your choice to be careless.

Now the problem with sin is that it is rebellion against the only source of life in the universe. There is no other source of life. There is no alternate life energy. God is life! To be connected to Him is to live. Satan deceived humanity into believing that there was life outside of God and that God couldn’t be trusted. We began to set our ladders up against the wall on unstable ground. God catches us over and over, sends us teachers, gives us written instructions of what our sins will do to us, and does everything He can do to teach us how lethal sin is. Finally He comes down Himself and demonstrates His faithfulness, His character, His love and we watch how hateful sinners destroy Him. We watch evil men push Him up the ladder, we watch Him fall knowing full well the pond wasn’t going to be there, and we watch Him break His neck. Did God punish Him? Or did He feel the consequences of our choice and taste the punishment of our sorrow?

The only legal aspect of salvation is God’s word. God said it and He can’t lie. So we have legal contract in His word. God gave this earth to the family of Adam and Adam gave it to Satan! Can God break His word to save Adam? Does God change His mind and take back Adam’s earth along with Adam’s freedom to choose? What would freedom look like if God were to suspend the consequences of our choices?

So God enters the family of Adam, destroys the power of Satan’s lies by demonstrating the truth, and invites everyone out of Satan’s family into His! Christus Victor!

scott

Hi Arnold,

If Person A and Person B hold to the penal view.
If scott knows A’s penal view.
Therefore scott knows B’s penal view.

The only thing that would make this not true is if the phrase “penal view” had more than one meaning. I’m sure there is a range of beliefs within those who hold the penal view of atonement, but I have yet to hear one that I agree with. Do you have a view I’m not familiar with that would fit into the category of “penal view”? If so I would love to hear it!



What you agree with doesn’t match the sentiments of most of the people I’ve met with the penal view. And I also believe there is a legal aspect to the atonement. And I do believe that God punishes unrepentant sinners so in a sense there is even a “penal” aspect to the atonement.

Tell me more!

scott

Good food for though, Arnold! I’m going to have to think about that one for awhile!

scott

1.Christus Victor has nothing to do with the idea that God's glory will destroy the wicked.

2.The following does, however:





Looked at more carefully, these passages not only declare the fact that this is how thw wicked will be destroyed, but explain why this is the case, and why it's important that this be understood.



It is the sinner who is forgiven. Christ bore our condemnation and punishment so *we* may be forgiven.



As Peter put it, Christ died to "bring us to God," which is just what we needed.




I agree completely with your last sentence. Another way of putting this is that the law recognizes the underlying reality; it doesn't create reality, but reflects it. Given the law reflects God's mind, let's consider that a moment. You say that God condemns sin, and so He does. Why? Because God is love. God loves us. and sin destroys us, so God naturally condemns sin.

If we would understand the mind of God in relation to how He thinks of and relates to sin and sinners, we have but to look at the life of Christ. For example, in His treatment of the woman caught in adultery, we see how God forgives the sinner while condemning the sin. The paralytic is another good example of this.



Or else! Because God is big and powerful, and He will destroy you if you don't! This is one way of looking at things. Another is that God is seeking to save us from the ravages of sin.

If you look at the context of Rom. 12, from which this is quoted, you will see that the idea of vengeance being spoken of is to love your enemy. This is indeed how God gets His vengeance. The glory of Him, *who is love*, will destroy the wicked. What is God's glory? His character. The same thing that gives life to the righteous will destroy the wicked.

This is an interesting thought!

Where? Did Jesus teach it? It seems to me it didn't even exist as a concept until Calvin. Do you know of anyone enunciating the thought before him? (specifically the idea that Christ had to die in order for God to be able to legally pardon us).

Hey Arnold,

Do you believe that Christ contained His divine powers while in the flesh?

The reason I ask is because I've always though of Him laying them down knowing that He could have them anytime He asked. But in essence He never tapped in even once to His divine powers. Doing so would have destroyed His mission to empathize and relate to humanity. Had He used His powers think of all the statements in the Bible we would question. Like "He was tempted in all ways like we are" or "He understands our sorrow and suffering".

It would be hard for me to understand Christ being a man yet full of all knowledge, present everywhere, and all powerful. That idea almost makes His human experience a sham. Imagine Jesus down here hanging on the cross, yet at the same time up in heaven sipping lemonade.

scott

It's a difficult subject, isn't it Scott? I believe Christ laid aside His powers in the sense that He never made use of them, but I believe He could have had He so chosen, without asking first.

There's an SOP statement that says something to the effect that it was as difficult for Christ to not use His divine powers as our temptations are for us. I can't remember it well enough to hunt for it, but I know Arnold is familiar with it, so maybe he can produce it. It would interesting to consider.

I believe Jesus had his divine powers in Himself, but kept them veiled in humanity for the most part. However, I also believe that He sometimes allowed His own divinity to flash through humanity, but never for His own benefit. In any case, He didn't do anything that we cannot do through God's grace.

Anyway, here's the quote, I believe:
This book, focusing on Christ's wilderness temptations, is very revealing. It was significant in shaping critical aspects of my non-orthodoxy.

These are difficult things to think about, Tom! It seems like they blow my pumpkin (as a close friend of mine says) when I spend too much time on them. I must not be intelligent enough to put together those pieces.

Thanks Arnold,

I appreciate new thoughts. Most of the time people simply regurgitate what they've been taught with little thought other than defending their own paradigm. You are on new ground for me. I’m interested in more! Is there a thread where this is discussed or should one be started?

scott

Good point about the thread. We have gone .

I'm not sure if there's already one on this. Perhaps someone else knows? If not, let's make one.

This statement says to me that it was impossible for Christ to “keep the level of (His) humanity” because it is impossible for us to rise above our depravation and overcome our own natures. This only happens through a supernatural encounter with God and a highly developed relationship of trust and love. Thus this statement tells me that Jesus was just as dependant on God as we are to overcome.

While we struggle to overcome our depravity Christ struggled not to tap into His divine powers, but without God supernatural help we would all fail. So Christ didn’t tap into His supernatural divine power to overcome, but was tempted in all ways like we are.

What do you think?

scott

Isn't this a contradiction? You have:

1.He sometimes allowed His own divinity to flash through humanity.
2.He didn't do anything that we cannot do through God's grace.

We can't do 1, right? (even with God's grace)

I think Christ was tempted in all points as we are (which implies He took our human nature) and was also tempted in ways that we not (such as keeping to the level of humanity).

I thought of this quote because the statement that it was difficult for Him to keep to the level of His humanity implies (to me) that He had another option, which was to make use of His divinity. So this would mean He could have used His divine powers if He chose to.

By God's grace, His divinity can flash through our humanity. I think that's the most important way we can confess that Christ came in the flesh.

What you said was a contradiction, right?

I like that! It requires no divinity on our part other than being a mirror that reflects His love and power!

Good thoughts!

scott

No, but I should have been clearer.

1.He sometimes allowed His own divinity to flash through humanity.
2.He didn't do anything that we cannot do through God's grace.

What I meant by "He didn't do..." is that the works He did are not beyond us, if we are conduits of God's grace. Heal the sick, raise the dead, even greatly annoy the wicked by our holiness. We can do all of these things if we allow Him to do all these things through us.

Now, as to how He did these things, we might not be able to do it through the same method. Regardless, the same divine power He manifested in His life is available to us, so we can manifest the same light in our lives.

Right. We partake of His divine nature. That's as divine as we need to be.

Just repeating what I've already pointed out in previous discussions. Christ died the equivalent to the second death on the cross but, because of His innocence, wasn't consumed as the wicked will be.

"Imagine, if possible, the nature and degree of Christ's suffering. This suffering in humanity was to prevent the outpouring of the wrath of God upon those for whom Christ died. Yea; for the church this great sacrifice will be efficacious throughout eternity. Can we compute the amount of her transgressions in figures?--Impossible! Then who can approach to a conception of what Christ endured when standing as surety for his church, in the solemn hour of atonement, when he yielded up his life as a sacrificial offering? Never, never can it be that God will again so manifest his holiness, his spotless purity; the sin that sprung up in heaven and its inconceivably heinous character; his utter hatred of sin, his solemn purpose to punish it, and that in the only one who could bear the strokes in behalf of the sinner, and because of his innocence would not be consumed." {HM, November 1, 1897 par. 5}

Glad you joined the party. And thanks for the quote.

This jumped out at me, though it's off-topic: this great sacrifice will be efficacious throughout eternity.

Efficacious throughout eternity. Does that mean that we will be under the "umbrella" of His sacrifice forever? How does this impact the "living without a Mediator" concept? Just thinking through my keyboard.

You say that Christ sometimes allowed His own divinity to flash through humanity, and Christ did nothing we cannot do by God's grace. Given this (allowing His own divinity to flash through humanity) is not a contradiction, either this is something Christ didn't do, or it's something we can do. But you just said He did it, so the only possibility is that it is something we can do too. But clearly we cannot allow our own divinity to flash through our humanity. So if Christ did nothing different than we can do, it was not His own divinity that flashed through His humanity, but God's. Unless you were thinking that Christ's divinity is the same as God's, so you used the term "His own divinity" interchangeably with "God's divinity". Is this what you had in mind?



How would the method be different?



I agree with this.

What does this mean? Especially the consumed part. That is, what happens to the wicked that did not happen to Christ?

You're parsing my writing like a compiler parses code. Human communication doesn't work that way. It could, if English was as precise as Pascal or even C, but it's not.

When I said that Jesus didn't do anything we can't, the "do" was not meant to be understood as you did. IOW, I did not intend to include manifesting His own divinity as one of the things that we can do. However, the work that He accomplished by manifesting His divinity we can also do by manisting His divinity.


Divinity is divinity, whether it is the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. That's why we can say there is one God.

But what I have in mind is that Jesus could manifest divinity that was inherently His. Any divinity flashing through us is only passing through us, and does not originate with us.

Re: Christ's divinity, review the DA commentary on the raising of Lazarus. That miracle was proof of Christ's divinity, not God's divinity working in Him. However, Paul's raising of Eutychus was not proof of Paul's divinity.


Note this:
This describes how we are to overcome. But it does not describe how Jesus overcame.

It seems to me that it refers to the complete destruction of the person as it will happen in hell.

"To sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire. If you choose sin, and refuse to separate from it, the presence of God, which consumes sin, must consume you." {MB 62.1}

It's good to be back after some days away from home.


Being a sinner, it's difficult for me to imagine not being under the "umbrella" of His sacrifice. I understand that "living without a Mediator," in this case, just means not having someone to intercede for you in case you sin.

Yes, everlasting righteousness primarily qualifies us for eternal life; living without a mediator is strictly an earthly experience of faith which comes after Christ has fitted us for heavenly society which is also successful - thus completed - mediation. We are filled by the Spirit from this day to that and on throughout eternity: the Spirit of Jesus is only withdrawn from unbelievers at that or any time.:-)

Ok, I understood "do" to refer to things which Christ did. I'm not sure how else one would understand this.



So what you meant to say is that we can do anything Christ did, by the grace of God, except for the things He did which we can't do. Is that right?



This is what I thought you meant, which is why I pointed out you were contradicting yourself, because you said this, and then said He didn't do anything we can't do, by the grace of God.



So the raising of the dead is proof of divinity of a divine being does it, but not if a non-divine being does it.



It does! Jesus said:



How did He overcome the world? By faith.

He also said:



From EGW:





There are many of these. I know of no quote in either Scripture nor the SOP which supports your assertion that Christ overcame one way but we overcome another.

The quote you cited applied to Christ. Christ took our sinful human nature, which, apart from divine assistance, cannot overcome. Christ depended upon His Father, and overcame, by faith, just as we must. Everything Christ did in His battle against sin (including the battle against self) we can do by the grace of God.

What does that mean? Here you are using "complete destruction" as a synonym for "consume," but I still don't know what this means to you. Does it means consumed by literal fire? Or does it mean something else?



You answered my question by first using "complete destruction" as a synonym for "consumed." Here are you simply using "consumed" as an explanation of what "consumed" means. What I'm asking is what happens to the wicked that did not happen to Christ. This is an interesting question, I think.

Exactly. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out the nuances of "do."


That's what EGW said.


If so, then this should work:
The result of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in Christ's experience. There is in Christ's nature a bent to evil, a force which, unaided, Christ cannot resist. To withstand this force, to attain that ideal which in Christ's inmost soul Christ accepts as alone worthy, Christ can find help in but one power. That power is Christ.

I hope I don't have to explain how silly that new version is. And if you have to modify it to make it fit, then what I said holds.

Tom,

I don’t know exactly. We know, of course, that there will be literal fire in the lake of fire. But Ellen White also speaks of a figurative fire:

“Against every evildoer God's law utters condemnation. He may disregard that voice, he may seek to drown its warning, but in vain. It follows him. It makes itself heard. It destroys his peace. If unheeded, it pursues him to the grave. It bears witness against him at the judgement. A quenchless fire, it consumes at last soul and body.” {Ed 144.5}

So I think we will have two kinds of fire – the internal and the external. How exactly they will act (simultaneously? one after the other?) I don’t know.


Christ obviously wasn’t completely destroyed. Ellen White says He wasn’t consumed. Does this refer only to His soul, or to His soul and His body? It’s difficult to determine exactly what “consumed” means.

Arnold,

I would like to know your opinion about the points discussed in my post just above.

Thanks Rosangela. Your last post is what I was wanting to get at.

What I think happens is the wicked cannot handle the revelation of their sins. That is what destroys them. EGW says that the light of the glory of God destroys the wicked. She also says that fire destroys them. She also says that the light of the glory of God gives life to the righteous. Putting this altogether, it's clear that that which consumes the wicked cannot be literal fire.

Also such an interpretation would not make sense in context. She says that Christ was not consumed because of His innocence. If one were consumed by literal fire, being innocent wouldn't help. Many innocent people have been consumed by fire. However if being consumed has to do with the conscience, then not being consumed because of one's innocence makes perfect sense.

It seems to me that making Christ too human has the same problems as making Him too divine. He was unique, but suffered like us in every way. He was not born lost believing God to be His enemy, but born "born again" with a close connection to the Father. How many of us can say that? He never experienced our lost-ness from birth, nor the final lost-ness of the unrepentant wicked, until the cross.

Just as we are not exactly like Him in His divinity, but taste His divinity in dwelling with His Spirit, so He was not exactly like us in our humanity, but tasted our death and suffered our dilemma. In the ways that are important and necessary for our comfort and salvation Jesus was exactly like us. In other ways His divinity was a liability in that His choices were much different than ours.

scott

This nails if for me, Tom! The literal flames that are cast down on the earth to melt it into the earth made new are said to devour the stubble. Stubble is not alive, but what is left after the harvest (judgment). The judgment finishes with a great battle that ends in the destruction of the wicked. This is depicted as a symbolic fire and I think that fire is the complete and unaltered truth about every man. Just like it was for Jesus at the cross, it is the faith in God’s graciousness that keeps the righteous safe and prepares them for translation. It is intimately knowing God!

But for the wicked that same revelation of truth causes so much mental anguish that they become dangerous animals in their fervor to hide from God’s consuming fire. Murder, suicide, and the heart stopping from fear are the lot of the wicked when God shows up. But, OTOH, the righteous have already faced this fire, know God’s love, and long to be healed. They trust Him.

scott

This is a good summary of my view at this point. While the figurative fire is certainly true, and will probably cause the most pain, I do not discount the possibility of a literal fire, especially in light of the SOP describing it as literal.

I think there will be a literal fire, but for cleansing, not punishment (which would be torture).

Obviously, Jesus didn't suffer the literal fire. But did He suffer the figurative fire? If so, was it just a natural consequence of what His condition, or was it something imposed on Him?

Yes, He suffered figurative fire. What He suffered was the natural consequence of that which was imposed upon Him, as well as that which He willingly took upon Himself.

What was imposed?



What did He willingly take upon Him? Our sins. How did this work? I believe it was similar to this:



Christ suffered both as victim (one sinned against unjustly) and sinner (He was numbered among the transgressors). This last part is more difficult to understand. That Christ suffered as a victim, a willing victim, is easy to see. How our iniquity was laid upon Him is more difficult to see. I think it was by way of empathy, along the lines detailed in the DA quote cited above. As the "weight of the grief of the ages" at Lazarus' funeral, so the "weight of the sins of the ages" was upon Him on the cross.

Hebrews says that Jesus was compassionate to our suffering. This wasn’t some passing feeling of empathy! It was really unconditional agape love that He had for the suffering children of Adam. The weight of our predicament is like we feel when our children are suffering because of the choices they made. I remember when my oldest daughter rebelled, left home, went to work in a bar, and started on a really bad journey. Oh, how my wife and I suffered and prayed for her. It broke our heart!

She is now the leader of the children’s division in our local church so we have a happy ending, but Jesus, looking on humanity, wept for our misunderstandings that would keep us from accepting His offering. The weight of the world was upon Him and it was His infinite love for us that caused His emotional and mental pain.

scott

Whose victim? If the figurative fire is a consequence of being incongruent with God's character, how can Jesus - God's express image - suffer it?

Sin is just as dangerous to the innocent as it is to the guilty. Sin is selfishness! Sinners are dangerous. Selfish people victimize others. Jesus suffered the consequences of God not intervening and letting sin play out. Jesus was the victim of sin! God simply didn't rescue Him as He had during His whole life.

scott

The cross did more than one thing. The first part, easy to understand, is not speaking to the figurative fire; the other part, the hard to understand part is.

Regarding how Christ could experience it, this is what I addressed in quoting from DA 534 and my related comments.



Yup, this is what I was thinking!

2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

In the same way we are not righteous, but His righteousness is imputed to us, He wasn't a sinner, but the holy One, yet our sin was imputed to Him.

Christ suffered mental agony for the sins that were upon Him, not just because sin brings suffering to us, but because sin is a crime and is condemned by the law (and, of course, by the Lawgiver).

How does a crime being condemned by the law bring suffering upon someone?

Isn't it possible the sin is condemned because it is sin itself which is bad and causes suffering, as opposed to simply the condemnation of it bringing bad results? This way, it is sin, rather than the condemnation of it, that is the problem.

To put this another way. Say the law did not condemn sin. Then would it be OK? Would sinners be able to live eternally, in peaceful coexistence with God and their fellows?

Yes Tom!

What if a man lived by himself on a desert Island and never hurt anyone, but his thoughts were evil all the time and he didn't acknowledge God? Would he still deserve a punishment for sin?

How long would God have to burn him?

I think a good way to look at this is in Jesus' teachings about forgiveness. Remember the story of the forgiven debtor who didn't extend forgiveness to someone who owed him a little after he had been forgiven a great debt. Jesus said that he would be cast in prison and tortured until his debt was paid.

Isn't the prison the life of the unforgiving mind? Those refusing to forgive live a life of hell. They are the perpetual victims living and reliving the wrongs done to them. Replaying forever the late night show and allowing those who victimized them to control them for a lifetime.

I doubt very much Jesus was literally talking about torture chambers in heaven.

scott

I find it absolute amazing how people who believe in penal atonement find their theology everywhere.

Rosangela,

Look at the context of 2 Corinthians 5:

The context is Christ’s love compelling us to ministries of compassion! Christ love compels us to minister for others because He died for all of us, so that we no longer would live for ourselves, so we would no longer have a worldly point of view. Anyone who is truly “in Christ” is a new creation and because God didn’t count our sins against us and freely forgave us we have been given this message of God’s love and reconciliation to all men. We are His ambassadors and God is making an appeal through us to everyone we come in contact. Be reconciled to God because God, in Christ, one who never sinned, took on our sinful flesh so that we could be made into His righteousness.

You’re using this text to prove that Jesus somehow collected all the guilt and sin on himself so that we could be acquitted is totally making Paul say something he isn’t saying. In fact Jesus becoming sin for us is simply saying that Jesus incarnate into humanity for our benefit. He did it “for us” as apposed to doing it “to us” or doing it “in spite of us” or doing it “through us”. Words mean nothing outside of context and taking words out of context to prove something the author didn’t intend is not honest to the text. The Bible was not written as a spec book, technical manual, or a code book, but as a case book! The word “for” in this text is preposition which means “in behalf of” or “for the sake of” not “in the place of”. You are reading your theology into the text.

scott

Can one sinner, or all sinners combined, make an innocent person suffer the consequence of becoming incompatible with God? Can a person make another person suffer the figurative fire?

I can see how sinners can cause Jesus to suffer the physical consequences of sin. But I do not believe that physical suffering is significant compared to the other kinds of suffering Jesus went through. So that aspect does not fully explain how Jesus was victimized.

Arnold, I think the DA text I quoted speaks to this.



Christ so identified with us (as sinners) that He felt as if He were a sinner, and felt that which sinners feel.

Hi Arnold,

It was Jesus' love for the lost that caused His agony. He could handle it while in the security and fellowship of the Father, but alone it must have seemed overwhelming. Jesus was promised in the prophetic scriptures that the Father would catch Him if He fell, protect Him from His enemy, feed Him when He was hungry, give Him water when He was thirsty, but suddenly the Father didn't intervene. And Jesus knew He wouldn't.

Had our sin not made this world such a dangerous place Jesus would have had no worries, but because of Adam's choice Jesus suffered as one of us for our benefit. Why? Because we needed to know God loved us and that there was nothing that could separate us from His love. He did this hoping that we would lay down our defenses and allow Him His rightful place in our hearts. He did it to set us right with God (justify us back to the Father. We are justified by grace simply means that God's graciousness sets us back in a right relationship to the Father.

If Christ didn't love us so much I don't think He would have stayed on the cross! Imagine hardened murderers torturing and killing you. Now imagine your own children whom you nurtured and love with all your heart spitting in your face, pulling your beard out, and nailing you to a cross. Which would hurt more?

scott

Scott, how do you explain thoughts like "He couldn't see through the portals of the tomb?" also that He felt the displeasure of God against sin and so forth?

If that is the case, then the feeling of separation from God which He experienced was not a "natural consequence" of sin, since He had no sin.

It was, if I understand you correctly, a consequence of His holy empathy. If so, His separation from God was caused by His holiness. But that goes against the concept that compatibility with God is what makes holiness good, and incompatibility with God is what makes unholiness bad.

Another option is that He was suffering the wrath of God in the place of the sinner. In which case, the just reward of actual sin was being felt by Jesus.

Hi Tom,

This obviously isn’t looking out of the tomb, but looking in. Once in the tomb we can’t see anything. To me it simply means that there was no physical, emotional, or spiritual assurance from God other than an already developed relationship. The Father was simply silent and didn’t break through the blanket of sin and sinners that were screaming death in Jesus’ ear. All Jesus could see in front of Him was death, but OTOH, He knew and trusted the Father to fulfill His promise of a resurrection.

Jesus had already told His disciples that He would raise again the third day! There is no way that Jesus lost trust in the Father’s love so to say He felt what the unsaved wicked feel at death is impossible. I have to agree with Tammy that Jesus experienced more of what the righteous feel who have tasted the grave with no physical help from God, no special expression of assurance, nothing to stand on, but what they have already learned in the past. Think of the martyrs who didn't receive help from God.

God’s displeasure toward sin is expressed in His wrath which, according to Romans 1, is God withdrawing His protection and allowing the dangers of sin to take their natural course. Jesus placed Himself into the hands of His enemies with no hope of rescue. How does God treat His enemies? Look at Jesus! What is God concerned about when His own reputation and existence are threatened? Listen to Jesus assure the thief hanging by His side. Listen to Him tell John to take care of His mother. Listen to Him ask the Father to forgive those who crucified.

I would say that Jesus’ display of displeasure against sin was revealed in His love expressed towards humanity as He suffered the destiny of every man. His compassion towards us was His expression of displeasure and His anguish was in our plight and our ignorance and our rejection of the truth. He was overwhelmed by our predicament to the point of death like we would be if our own child was drowning and all we could do is drown with them because they refused to accept our help and we refused to leave them alone.

scott

Scott,

You are completely disregarding what the text says. God made Christ to be sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. He became "a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13). He was made sin for us that we might become righteous "in Him" - not in ourselves. Our sins were imputed to Him, so that righteousness might be imputed to us. In the same way that righteousness is not intrinsic to us but is credited to us, our sins weren't intrinsic to Christ but were credited to Him.
"God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them" (v. 19), but imputing their trespasses, instead, to Christ, as v. 21 says.

How could the law not condemn sin? The law is a transcript of the character of God. Therefore, what the law condemns is just what the character of God condemns. And when God manifests His condemnation of sin, the whole weight of guilt is felt by him upon whom that sin is.
Now, God condemns sin for two reasons - because sin brings suffering to His creatures, and because sin is the antithesis of His own nature; sin is repulsive to Him.

Right!



Ok, we'll leave the law out of things, and say God didn't condemn sin because of personal reasons (because sin is the antithesis of His nature, or because it is repulsive to Him), that He just condemns it for the first reason, because of the suffering it brings. Does anything change? I.e., Would sin be OK? Would sinners be able to live eternally, in peaceful coexistence with God and their fellows?

Of course not. But what is the point of this question?

The point is that the problem that sinners face is not an arbitrary one (i.e., due to discretionary decision) imposed upon them by God, but due to sin. Therefore the solution is to save sinners from sin. It is sin they need saving from, not from an arbitrary action of God (such as condemning sin for personal reasons).

But Tom, remember our discussion about God isolated every sinner from everyone else? Didn't we agree that things are the way they are, not because there was no other way, but because this is the way God chose them to be? IOW, His discretionary decision does come into play.

I don't know what you are referring to, Arnold.

Certainly God's discretionary decisions comes into play in certain circumstances; for example, God chose to create sentient beings. But I don't believe the destruction of the wicked is due to a discretionary decision on the part of God, but rather, it is due to the decisions of the wicked themselves.

Read post 101340 and 101347. You said, "I would say the extermination of sinners is based on God's choice to allow His creatures to exercise free will." God could have allowed sinners to stay alive forever, but He chose another way. And that choice by God, coupled with the sinner's choice to be incongruent with God, is why the wicked will be destroyed.

We agreed that God could not allow the wicked to stay alive, because that would be contrary to His character. So He could have allowed sinners to stay alive forever in the same sense that He could sin or lie. The wicked die because of their own choice, not because of a discretionary decision on God's part.

It is a discretionary decision by God. Things are the way they are, not because He cannot do it another way, but because He will not.

In the language you prefer, God could not keep sinners alive because it goes against His character. It's not that He lacks the ability or the resources to keep sinners alive, but that He lacks the willingness. His character is revealed by the things that He is willing or unwilling to do - His choices. (Just like the character of sinners is revealed by their choices.)

The eternal death of the wicked is inevitable because God chose it to be that way, in accordance to His character.

This is what I said. It's like God cannot lie or sin.



God's character is revealed in that He does not lie or sin. He "cannot" do these things, according to Scripture. It's not that He lacks the ability to sin or lie, but it's not something He would actually do. In the same sense, God could choose to keep the wicked alive, but, to use Scripture's example as a guide, one could say as well "God cannot keep the wicked alive" since it's not something He would actually do.



One could say this about anything, couldn't one? Everything is the way it is because God chose it to be that way. Sounds like Calvin. Or Augustine.

Hi Arnold,

If what you say is true then is it also true that each individual's saved-ness or lost-ness is also inevitable because God chose it to be that way?

And is sin here because God chose it to be that Way?

I think Tom is right that this thinking is bordering on Calvinism. Predestination is the logical conclusion of the doctrine of "absolute foreknowledge" whether we admit it or not.

scott

I don't really care if it sounds like Calvin or Augustine or anyone else. It is right, and I refuse to allow any kind of bigotry to cloud my judgment. I will not disagree with a concept just based on someone else's agreement or disagreement with it, because that is a logical fallacy.


Regardless of whatever your hangups may be about it, what you just said there is the basic definition of discretionary decision or choice.

Why is it that the wicked will not have eternal life? Is it because they lack to ability or resources to do otherwise? No. It is because of their choice.

We are made in God's image, with free will. Yes, God also has free will. Your failure to see the fact that God makes choices is a huge flaw in your paradigm.

You must have missed this from post 101586:
God chose what the ramifications will be for our choices - the end of each path. It remains with us to choose which path we will take.

To answer your question, God chose what will happen to the saved and what will happen to the lost. You get to choose if you will be one of the saved or the lost.


Sin is here because sinners choose it to be that way. Sins consequences, OTOH, are because God chose it that way.

Your ideas of what God chooses and what we choose seem to be very different. To put my paradigm in game show language: God decides what's behind each door and He tells us what's behind each door and He tells us which is the wise choice, but it is up to us which door we will choose.


He could have connected life with evil, but that would suck for all involved. He's a nice God, not because He must but because He wills. And that makes His niceness that much nicer. Forced benevolence is not as comforting as chosen benevolence.

So what happens when we sin is an arbitrary choice determined by God? If God had so chosen, He could have had sin result in eternal life, and righteous result in death, and it's just an arbitrary choice that makes things result the way they do? This is the correct paradigm? (by "correct" I mean correctly representing your paradigm)

Do you care if it is like Calvin's or Augustine's view? If it just sounds like their view, but it's really different, you can clarify how it's different. If it's the same, then that helps to know too.



When you say "it" do you mean the view of Augustine and Calvin, or Arnold?



You're saying you won't disagree with the idea you have just because Augustine or Calvin agree with it? Am I understanding you correctly?



God allows people to have the result of their choice. If He wanted to, He could overrule that and force them to receive something else instead. Saying this is the basic definition of discretionary decision or choice seems weird to me.

One could say that God could overrule anything that happens and cause something else to happen instead, so that, because of this, everything that happens is because of a discretionary decision of God. This seems to be what you are saying. This seems to me to be an odd way of looking at things.



This mostly agrees with what I've been saying.



You think I don't see that God has free will? That seems odd to me. What have I written that gives you the impression I don't see that God has free will? Also, why do you think I don't see the fact that God makes choices?

Isn't it obvious that God has free will and makes choices? How would it be possible for this not to be the case?

Yes, arbitrary in the sense the it depends on God's discretion, His absolute authority, and His unlimited power. But it was definitely not tyrannical, nor convenient, nor capricious, nor unreasonable.

As we had discussed previously, God has the ability to make things work differently, but He did not choose any of those ways.


Assuming God stays the same, then sin can never result in the eternal life Jesus described in John 17. However, He can keep a sinner from dying indefinitely, like Satan. He can also end the life of anyone, including the righteous, and make him disappear as if he had never been.

Things work the way they do because that's what God decided was the way He wanted it. And He wanted it that way because that's the way He is - His character.

I'll show my ignorance by admitting that I don't know what Calvin or Augustine taught. I tried to read Augustine once, but I couldn't understand what he was trying to say.

So if what I say sounds like what they said, OK. That's fine, but it doesn't matter to me.


"It" in this context is what I said, especially since I don't know what the other two guys said.


What I'm saying is that another's person's view does not determine mine one way or the other.

That reminds me of some people I have debated who would essentially say, "That's what Augustine taught. Therefore it is wrong." They never search the Scriptures to see if these things are so; they only do it to show that these things are not so.

This is from DA 764:



It seems to me that if you look at the context, the word "arbitrary" must mean "individual discretion" as opposed to "tyrannical, nor convenient, nor capricious, nor unreasonable." She is arguing that the destruction of the wicked is not due to the discretionary decision of God, but rather the choice of the individual. I don't see how else this can be understood. If she had meant "arbitrary" in the sense of "capricious" or "unreasonable," then she would have argued why God's decision was reasonable. But she didn't. Instead she argued that it wasn't God's decision at all, but the decision of the wicked.

In that passage, was she talking about God's free will or man's?

Is this a discretionary decision on the part of the wicked? Are they free to choose another ending? Why can't the wicked decide the live forever instead of dying? Why can't the wicked decide to just happily live in Heaven instead of being destroyed by God's presence?

She talked about both. The wicked are destroyed as a result of their discretion as opposed to God's.

Good questions, Arnold!



Yes. She makes this point quite a number of times. For example, " when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life." The wicked make the discretionary decision to separate from God, and thus from life.



Yes. They don't have to choose the service of sin. They can't choose for sin not to end in death, because death is "the inevitable result of sin."



They could. They could choose Christ (life) instead of sin (death).



Because they hate heaven.

Not in that passage.

There are two events: sowing and reaping. There are two choices: yours and God's. You decide what you will sow. God decided how the sowing and reaping are related.

That passage talks about sinners choosing what they will sow, and consequently reaping the baleful harvest. That's all on the sinner because God does not exercise His power to make them choose one or the other.

She was not describing God's creative work, where He determined how to relate the sowing with the reaping. That is described elsewhere.

This is true, but not her point. She says the destruction of the wicked is the result of the choice of the wicked, as opposed to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God. Iow, the end is itself due to their own choice. I don't see how else one can read the passage. The word "arbitrary" can only mean, in context, "individual discretion," and she's not considering at all the possibility that God would be forcing the wicked to make some sort of decision. She's talking about the destruction itself and what causes it. It comes as a result of their own choice, as opposed to something God does to them.

Take a look at the second paragraph:



At the beginning of the GC, what is it that the angels did not understand? They didn't understand that sin inevitably results in death. Had Satan and his host been *left* to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished. It would have appeared that God was causing their destruction, rather than sin. That would have led to doubt in regards to God's character.

Let's go back to the game show analogy, as that was a good choice, I think, of trying to communicate a tricky concept. Why is death behind the door that says "sin" on it? You are suggesting it's because God put it there. He warns us what's behind the door, but He's the one who decides what goes behind the doors labeled "sin" and "righteousness" respectively. This is what I heard you to be saying.

This way of looking at things, to my mind, disconnects sin and death. Death is only the result of sin because God decided to put death behind the sin door. I think sin and death are intrinsically connected. I'm trying to think of a good example. I was thinking of like two sides of a coin, but you could say that God could have put something else on the back of the coin, so I'm trying to think of something else.

I guess we could consider the law. Why does obedience to the law result in good things? Is it because God has so decided? God has decided to put good things behind the command doors? Or is there something intrinsically good about doing what the commandments say, that lead to good results by their very nature? (or, since the law is a transcript of God's nature, one could say the good things happen as a result of God's nature).

So doing the loving thing, as opposed to the selfish thing, brings good fruit not because God has decided it should be this way, but because being selfishness, by its very nature, leads to conflict.

How would Satan have perished? Either God would have ceased to sustain his life, like He did with Ananias and Sapphira, or (more probably) God would have judged him and the weight of his guilt would have crushed him. In both cases God would have used His individual discretion.

I can think of other possibilities. I'll mention just one. The person tells God, "I don't wish to live anymore" and God grants the person his request.

I don't understand why you think the weight of guilt comes of as a result of God's doing something as opposed to simply being the weight of guilt itself. To make this clearer, you appear to look at things like this:

a.People can sin with no problem as far as guilt is concerned. God has to do something (e.g. judge them) in order for guilt to be a problem.

I see it like this:

b.God in mercy does not allow people to come face to face with their guilt. He prevents them from facing it, because it would kill them, and He wants to give them a chance to be saved (which, obviously, couldn't happen if they were killed by their guilt). Once they make sin their "final answer," God no longer prevents guilt from having the impact it should have had all along.

In DA 764 she talks about has Satan and his host been "left" to reap the result of their sin. If their destruction were due to God's judging them, rather than due to sin, it wouldn't make sense for her to speak in terms of God's leaving them to reap their reward. In this case she would say, "Had God judged them at this time, it would not have appeared that this was the inevitable result of sin." Also, it really doesn't make sense for her to say that death is the inevitable result of sin if the reason for death is because of God's doing something to make them die.



If beings die because God does something to make them die, then the above sentence doesn't make any sense, because it wouldn't simply be the case that it would not be apparent that death is the inevitable result of sin, it wouldn't even be true!

What if beings die because God did not prevent it by doing something that was well within His power to do?

"God gives them existence for a time..." DA 764 God can give sinners continued existence, as evidenced by Satan. if God leaves him to reap the natural harvest of his sin, they will die; without God's direct action we would die immediately. When God stops keeping sinners alive, does that not count as "doing something"?

For example, if a train track switch operator sees a kid playing on the tracks, but does nothing to prevent him from being crushed by the train, we could easily say that he just left the kid alone to reap the consequences of his choice. But couldn't we also say that he "did something" that caused the kid's death? In fact, wouldn't most people believe that the operator was responsible?

So also, God leaving sinners to reap death in consequence of their sin can be seen as God "doing something" to cause the death, because He refused to prevent it.

Then in this case people would die because of their choice. Imo a better analogy would be, a person jumps off a building. God could prevent the person from dying by sending an angel to break his fall. So one could say that God "did something" that caused this person's death, but that would be rather an odd way of looking at it I think.



Yes, like a person who jumps off a building. God refuses to do something about this every time He allows this to happen. Again, this seems to me to be an odd way of looking at it.

What seems evident to me from what EGW writes is that the wicked do not want have anything to do with God, with heaven, with those who abide by His presence, that these things are torture for them, and they choose to separate themselves from God. This is all true, isn't it?

Would you consider that train track switch operator as having no responsibility in the outcome?

For 6000 years, God has prevented the result of sin from being fully realized. If He suddenly changes His course of action such that all the sinners who ever lived reap the consequences within a short time of each other, don't you think that can rightly be called "doing something"?

BTW, a localized modification in the values of G (F=GMm/r^2) and/or k (F=kQq/r^2) would prevent harm to the silly jumper. No angelic intervention required.

Yes. I don't see this has any relation to our discussion though.



I think it would be similar to the analogy I gave. That is, for 6,000 years, God sends an angel to prevent a person's jumping off a building from being fatal, or, to use Scott's illustration, He miraculously replaces the solid ground with a swimming pool. So God would be "doing something" in the sense of not miraculously putting in a pool.

This can't really be characterized as God's doing something so much as people becoming accustomed to God's doing something, and expecting Him to continue doing the same thing.



Or God could put in a pool. Or miraculously put a giant pogo stick in the hands of the one falling. I agree; lots of ways to save the jumper without using angels.

I was thinking more about this. This could have some bad side effects.

Wait, that was ambiguous. Let's try that again.

Does the train track switch operator have any responsibility if he allows the kid to be crushed by the train?

Of course a switch operator has responsibility. No one would argue this, would they?

However, I don't see this as being a good analogy, because God, in real life (as I perceive things) is not performing an analogous act in choosing not to prevent one to exercise a choice, done with the knowledge of the consequences involved.

The kid playing on the tracks is not making a conscious choice to die, like someone jumping off a building would be doing in the analogy I suggested.

Perhaps a good thing to do, to help us communicate, is to explain what we think is happening in the judgment. From the GC 543 quote, it seems to me what happens is the wicked simply do not want to live if living means being with God, abiding by the principles of love, being around those who love God, etc. The conscious choice of sin/self over love/God results in the destruction of their character, which ruin ends in their voluntary exclusion from heaven.

Boy, that was briefer than I thought it was going to be! I'll stop here.

In our previous discussions I presented this argument to you many times, Tom - that God cannot be exempted from responsibility when He lets people die by removing His grace. As I said in the thread "The Atonement," God's act of removing His grace would be equivalent to removing the net from bellow the person who jumped from the building and then saying that the person died because of his/her own choice. This is only partly true, like in the case of the switch operator.

This choice is made before the judgment - during the life of the person. At the judgment the person just understands the sinfulness of his/her sins and the value of the salvation he/she refused to accept. It's this that will cause agony to the person and kill him/her.

Yes, I agree with. Such is the balance between man's inalienable free will and God's sovereign choice.

As for Rosangela's previous post, the end of the wicked is actually by God's discretion, for he rules over all eventualities whatsover - and rules JUSTLY & is HOLY throughout!

I don't recall this. The idea that God is responsible seems to be Satan's argument. From DA 764:



This seems to exempt God from responsibility and place it upon the wicked, which, IMO, is where it belongs.



It's more like God's not miraculously placing a net in place, as opposed to His removing it. It's like if you take poison, and God provides a remedy so you don't die, so you have time to decide if you really want the poison or not. You decided you want the poison, and God says, "Ok, if that's your choice, I'll respect it."

I really don't see how God can be help responsible for the wickeds' choice of sin. It seems to me the only way God could be responsible would be if sin were innocuous.

I agree this will cause agony, but there's more that's happening than just this:



This is something which happens at the judgment itself. The wicked voluntarily choose to be excluded from heaven. Why? Because they hate it.

This looks to contradict DA 764:



Also GC 543 (actually much of this whole chapter addresses this).

A large part of the GC has to do with who is responsible for sin and death. Satan argues that God is responsible. I believe the judgement will show that God is entirely innocent.

Here "arbitrary" would be "tyrannical", since it's the opposite of what God's sovereignty involves. Furthermore, moral and natural laws are not self-regulating: God, who created them - including the principle that sin is selfish, exercised his sovereignty over his creatures' destinies. Sin faces a sad judgement, but you sound like you don't think God judges sin at all - just withdraws himself from proceedings after sustaining sinners during grace's probation?

This cause and effect of sin you lean on is a choice of God: it didn't become true by itself, AND God is just in setting it up.

Of course God had to allow sin's invention as the risk of creating free choice, but God rightly takes issue with persistent sinful free choice after his truth has been revealed and rejected.

You do realise you're flogging a dead horse? - we agree with your point. Your take on God's justice though is unclear, as you appear to leave it out but protest that you don't when we note such appearance....

No, here would be "individual discretion" because that's what the context supports. She is not arguing that God is not tyrannical. She is arguing that He does not cause the death of the wicked, but instead, it is something they themselves choose. This is easily seen by considering the paragraph:

1.The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.
2.When one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.
3.They receive the results of their own choice.
4.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.

Every sentence is making this point. Now if her argument were that God destroys the wicked, but such destruction is not arbitrary (i.e. tyrannical) she would have instead made arguments as to why this destruction was a reasonable thing for God to do. But that's not her argument at all.

If you continue to the next paragraph, one sees her line of thought continues. She explains that had God "left" Satan to reap the consequences of his sin, a doubt as to God's goodness would have remained. Why? Because His actions would have been misunderstood.

What action is she talking about? "Leaving" Satan to reap the result of his choice. Not "causing" Satan to reap the result, but "leaving" him to do so.

She calls death the "inevitable result of sin." It could hardly be called that if the reason sinners die is because God, rather than sin, causes them to die.

Sin is not bad because God set things up this way. Sin is not something God simply dislikes and decides to punish for that reason.



The problem is not that God takes issue with it, but it is lethal. God takes issue with it *because* it is lethal. Even if God did not take issue with it, it would still be lethal. Because God loves us, He warns us of the lethality of sin, and provides a way by which we may be healed/saved from it.



If you agreed with my point, you wouldn't assert things contrary to it, would you?



It looks like you are defining "leave out" as "have a different point of view regarding it than I do." As I have pointed out, I started a thread regarding God's justice, which was discussed at length. I've also quoted the following several times:

If the governor of a State should indiscriminately pardon all offenses against the law, it would absolutely abolish all restraint of law. The motive in his mind might be love, but that love would be so unwisely and imprudently manifested that it would lead to anarchy and misery. The same is true of the Governor of the universe. His love and his wisdom are one. His pardoning power must be so exercised in “wisdom and prudence” as to lead men to unity and joy, and not to anarchy and misery, else it is not love....

Sin is secession from the government of God. Satan seceded, and sought to exalt his throne above that of God. Sinners are those who have joined themselves to Satan’s forces in this secession. God, in infinite love, sends his own and only Son to put down the rebellion. He cannot pardon those who are still in rebellion, for this would but justify the rebellion and dishonor the law, and so perpetuate and multiply the misery. But through Jesus this rebellion is finally to be put down entirely. “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head.” O’er every
hilltop of earth and heaven, where for a short time there has waved the black standard of the man of sin, there shall forever float the white pennon of the Prince of Peace.

Every one who lays down his arms and surrenders his opposing will to God has the promise of pardon. This pardon God can grant, and not dishonor his law. Yea, more, it is through this pardon that the mercy and love of God’s law and government are revealed,---a love that only commanded the right way, not to be arbitrary and domineering, but that men might be happy,---a love that when men repent of the wrong, and turn back their hearts toward the broken law, is ever willing to forgive the past and give power for future obedience. It is thus that God can be just, and still the justifier of those who believe on Jesus.2 It is thus that faith in Jesus exalts the law of God to the highest heavens, and establishes it forever.

The cross of Calvary, to the whole universe of intelligent beings, is the greatest demonstration that ever has been or ever can be given that God’s law is eternal and universal, and yet that his love is infinite; reaching down with tender, fatherly longing to lift up the lowest transgressor. In fact, his love is his law, and the law is unchangeable because his love is from everlasting to everlasting. When men behold this, they are led to repent of past transgressions, and to pray for power for future obedience. It is thus that Christ is exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.3 It is thus that the atonement is made, and rebellious men are led back into unity with God and with one another.(God is Love)

Another related thought by the same author:

And what is justice, the justice of God, but another name for his love? Our partial love may make us unjust. If I love A more than B, I may be unjust to B, but this injustice is not the result of my love for A, but rather of the imperfection of my love in its lack toward B. The moment we conceive of a love that is infinite and all-embracing, that moment we see that that love includes justice. Can he who loves all his children be unjust to any of them? Thus justice is love, and he, the dread One, holding the balances in his hands, is he beyond whose love and care we cannot stray, though we may often grieve his Spirit.

And what shall I say of the wrath of God, spoken of so many times in the Scripture? Jesus Christ came to reveal the Father. There never was a being on this earth who loved the sinner as did he, and never one who so perfectly and completely hated the sin. His love for the sinner was as infinite as his hatred for the sin. In him is revealed a God who ever and always completely separates between the sinner and the sin. He hates the sin, because it is the enemy of the sinner, whom he loves. If I have a friend, and know of an assassin who is lurking for his life, the measure of my love for that friend is the measure of my hatred for that assassin.

Sin is the only enemy of the human race. It lurks insidiously behind ten thousand beautiful forms of pleasure, and ever lurks with murderous intent. All God’s hatred is his hatred for sin. All his wrath is his wrath against sin. This hatred and wrath are simply his love for the sinner, whom sin is seeking to destroy. The plan of redemption is God’s effort, by revealing his infinite love, to separate the sin from the sinner, so that sin may be destroyed, misery banished, and the universe clean, and yet the sinner saved.

Only those who finally and inseparably connect themselves with sin, so that God cannot destroy the one without destroying the other, will have to drink God’s wrath against sin. Love takes no pleasure in this even. “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?”

Thus all the attributes of God are traced back to the one attribute, and “God is love.” “Love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love.” There is nothing in God but love, for love includes everything good. His love reaches to the outermost rim of his mighty universe, and takes in its constant care all his creatures, never leaving them for a moment, however much they may grieve him to his heart.

I realize the quotes from my previous post are rather long, so I'll repeat one paragraph:



This paragraph explains how God can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus in harmony with the principles I've been suggesting.

What I'm saying is that you want to exempt God from any responsibility but your argument doesn't do that at all.


No, of course not. Human beings have already jumped (when they sinned) and are already in the net (the grace of God), but God will remove it on the day of judgment. This is the analogy which corresponds to what you affirm. If you could exempt from responsibility the one who removes the net from below someone who has jumped, then your model could exempt God from responsibility. But that is not the case.


You speak as if these two things were mutually exclusive, but they aren't.

"A great price has been paid for the redemption of man, and none who are untruthful, impure, or unrighteous can enter the kingdom of heaven. If men do not make Christ their personal Saviour, and become true and pure and holy, there is only one course for the Lord to pursue. He must destroy the sinner, for evil natures cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Thus it is that sin, if not destroyed, will destroy the sinner, just as Satan designed it should." {16MR 273.3}

Here Ellen White says that God destroys the sinner and that sin destroys the sinner. Both are true. God will destroy sin, and sinners will perish in its destruction. So, when someone chooses sin he is choosing to be destroyed.

Sure it does. The EGW quote says the destruction of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary choice of God, but due to the choice of the wicked. Understanding "arbitrary" to mean "individual discretion," gives my argument.

Actually I don't think I personally used the word "responsibility." (although it might have been used in responding to someone). What I said was simply that the death of the wicked is due to their own choice, not God's. IOW they die because of the choice they made, not because God does something to them arbitrarily to make them die. This is what I've been arguing.

In regards to responsibility, one could always make the argument that God is responsible to some extent for everything that happens since He created everything. I haven't been discussing this at all.



This seems overly complicated. The Spirit of Prophecy says the destruction of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God. Understanding "arbitrary" to mean "individual discretion" we have my argument in DA 764.

The wicked are responsible for their destruction. They choose death by choosing sin. I don't see the difficulty here. How could this not be the case? Isn't this exactly what DA 764 is saying?



What is God doing here?

GC 543 tells us "their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves." That means it is something they choose. God gives each one what they choose. That's reasonable, isn't it?

Rosangela, when we have discussed what actually happens in terms of the wickeds' being destroyed, it seems to me that you see things as being largely the way I seem them. In fact, it seems to me like you see as possible everything I see, but aren't sure about some of it. That is, most of what happens we see the same way, and a small percentage you see as maybe being as I see it, and maybe not. That's been the impression I've gotten when we actually talk about what specifically happens to the wicked. Do you agree with this?

Assuming this is the case, it seems to me that our difference in this particular thread must be largely semantical.

I have the same impression regarding Arnold.

Regarding MM, however, it's a different story. He sees God as actually doing very different things than I do. Specifically I'm talking here about whether the wicked are burned alive by literal fire to make them pay for the sins they have committed.

I don't know where Colin stands on this.

We agree as to the mechanism of the death of the wicked. We disagree as to the reason of their death - I believe God will destroy sin, while you think sin will destroy itself.

I never said sin would destroy itself. I've been quoting DA 764:



This doesn't say "sin will destroy itself." It says that death is "the inevitable result of sin." This is what I have said. Not once have I said "sin will destroy itself." Many, many times I've said "death is the inevitable result of sin."

You haven't said this in the present discussion, but you said it in previous discussions. In the thread "The Atonement" you said it in post #75920 and subsequent posts.



It seems to me you still defend this.

"Self" is referring to the one practicing it. This says, " It is destructive to the one, or self, who is practicing it." The "self" here is referring to the person, not the sin. Again this says, "It destroys the one who does it." It doesn't say, "It destroys itself."

Sinners destroy themselves by insisting to cling to sin.



The problem is clearly sin. Sin causes the revelation of the character of God to result in death for one group of people, while for another, the same revelation results in life.

Why are we talking like sin is some kind of an entity in itself? Sin is rebellion against God. Sin happens in the minds of sinners (that's all of us). Sins are what people do who are in rebellion against God. How could sin destroy itself? Sinners destroy themselves all the time! That is a given! And when they die their sin, as far as they are concerned, is over and dead.

All God needs to do to wipe out sin is to remove all His holy influence and leave sinners to their own demise. I would call it releasing the four winds of strife, the end of probation, or the destruction of the wicked.

The real question is not whether or not sinners could survive a world run by Satan with none of God’s influence present, but how long would it take for them to destroy the whole earth including themselves!

The resurrection and final death of the wicked seems to be an answer to several questions that no one is asking. What would a world be like without the influence of God? Is there life outside of God? Can beings survive without God? If the answer to these questions is “no” then it is very obvious that Satan’s rebellion had no foundation in the first place and he is a liar from the beginning.

scott

Tom, I said "and subsequent posts."

#75923 "If sin destroys a person's life, it destroys itself, because sin cannot exist apart from one's life."

#75927 "Sin is not a sentient being which can do anything. When we speak of sin, just as in the case of the law, doing something, this is a metaphor. Sin causes the one who sins to irrationally choose death, which is how it 'destroys itself.'"

However, in your post #75929 you said this: "Saying that sin destroys itself is an unclear way of putting things. I'm quite sure I've never said that."

Now I'm confused. Which is your position?

By the way, when I re-read part of that discussion, I remembered Ecclesiastes 1:9 - "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun." What we are discussing is what we have already discussed...

It should be clear than whenever words like "sin" or "law" are used in ways indicating volition, that a metaphor is intended.

Regarding this quote:



This is true, isn't it? I mean, don't even you agree with it?

Let's start from the bottom.

Do sinners choose to sin because they are consciously choosing the Lake of Fire? Do they stand there holding the skin mag thinking, "I think I'd like to so damage myself that God's glory will be a consuming fire to me"? Unless your experience is drastically different from mine, we both know that is not how it works. We are tempted to sin because sin is presented as something pleasing, not something that will result in misery, agony, and eternal death. So while some sinners are represented by someone knowingly jumping off the building, most are better represented by the kid playing on the tracks, and growing to love playing on the tracks so much that they will eventually prefer to stay there even if the train is coming.

So when God finally sighs, "Well, if that's how you want it...." and lets the train run over the sinner, even though He is fully able to make the train go on another track as He has done for so long and for so many, do you believe that God has some responsibility for how things turn out? Consider also that He made the train, the tracks, the switch, and the sinner.

And in your analogy, God made the building, the ground, gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the jumper.

During our life here, yes, people are not aware of the consequences of what they are doing, but in the judgment they are. GC 543 tells us that the choice of the wicked is voluntary to themselves. DA 764 tells us that the destruction of the wicked is *not* due to a discretionary choice on the part of God, but due to the choice of the wicked.

But when is the irrevocable decision made that dooms the lost to destruction? It is made "during our life here." In the judgment, when things are crystal clear to all, there is no opportunity to make a new decision. So the choice to be lost is often made before one clearly sees how it will play out; all he has to go by is "the wages of sin is death," without necessarily knowing all the reasons why.

That's why the "kid on the tracks" analogy is much more accurate in general than the "jumping off a building" analogy. Few people choose sin knowing fully and clearly that it will end badly. Most people choose sin thinking that it will be more fun than the alternative, while ignoring wise counsel.

For a long time, God switches the train to the other tracks to keep the sinner alive, and to continue giving wise counsel. Someday, God will let the train run over the sinner. It will be fully the sinner's fault, but I can't say that God had nothing to do with it.


Yes, the sinner is fully responsible for being on the tracks. God did not put him there. In fact, God kept telling him to get off the tracks. God even went so far as to send His Son to die on the tracks, so we could see clearly how nasty things can get for people on the tracks. But the sinner loves playing on the tracks so much that even when he sees clearly the train is coming, he'll prefer to stay on the tracks.

So, yes, it is the sinner's choice that determines the outcome.

However, God, not the sinner, made the train and the tracks. God made things run the way they do. Could He have made them a different way? Yes. Could He have set things up so that the sinner does not die? Yes.

Here's how Graham Maxwell put it (with my emphasis):
He could have, but He refused to. That is discretionary choice on the part of God.

Sinners die because they choose to be sinners. They could have chosen to obey and live, but they refused. That's their decision.

There are only two option: 1) obey and live, 2) disobey and die. There is no option to disobey and live. Or in Maxwell's illustration, there is no possibility of everlasting life imprisonment. That was a decision God made long ago.

The problem is not with a lack of opportunity, but a lack of willingness. It's not like the wicked like heaven and wish they could live there, but God doesn't allow them to. They hate heaven, and *voluntarily* choose to be excluded from it.

The whole point in making clear that the choice is voluntary is to make clear that being excluded from heaven is *their* decision.



The choice to be excluded from heaven is voluntary *after* being resurrected, not before.



It seems to me that this isn't a good analogy and it should be easy to see why. It portrays God in a negative light.

It's not that the wicked want to go to heaven, but God, as a big ogre, doesn't let them, even though things we be good if He did, and God goes, "Sorry. You had your chance. Now it's too late." and this is the reason they are eternally lost.



The problem with the analogy is not what you're saying here, which I can agree with, but with what you said earlier about a kid playing on the tracks. A kid playing on tracks has no accountability. God does not allow the train to run over the wicked due to actions which are analagous to the choice the kid is making; i.e. choices which have no accountability.

People do things they know are wrong. This is what causes them to be lost. They may not know the full implications of their actions (indeed, none of us do) but if they did not willingly do that which they knew was wrong, with the Holy Spirit pleading, crying, shouting (Prov. 1:20) at them not to, they wouldn't be lost.

As the DA passage points out (DA 764), the death of the wicked is not due to the individual discretion of God (this is using your definition of "arbitrary" which you gave to this passage!) but due instead to the decision of the wicked.

I agree with what A. Graham Maxwell said. God could physically have people live in prisons, just like God is physically able to sin. But God will not do this because of His character. I've already made this point clear. I'm not disagreeing that God has the physical capability to do things contrary to His character. I don't understand why you are still bringing this point up. I've already agreed to it.



There was no more need for God to make this "decision" than for Him to "decide" not to rape, murder or steal.

I think Jesus jumped in front of the train, and by so doing He slowed down the train, but one day the train will reach the point where the children are playing.

This suggests to me that Jesus did not fully defeat sin. However, where sin abounds, grace does much more abound. Jesus fully defeated the train.

Admitedly, any analogy will suffer if examined too closely, so let's consider the points involved. I believe:

a.Christ provides a way whereby a person can be fully healed, or saved, from sin.
b.Christ did this at inestimable cost to himself.
1)He came at the risk of failure and eternal loss.
2)He suffered the effects of sin, not being able to see through the portals of the tomb.
c.The problem is sin itself, not what God does to those who sin.
d.If a person chooses sin over redemption, then he will so ruin his own character than he will not be able to, nor desire to, be in the presence of God, nor those who love God and his principles. Thus he destroys himself.

What does the train represent in Arnold's analogy? Sin? To me it represents another thing, but Arnold is the author of the analogy, so only he can say what the train represents.

This reminds me of something from the other thread on Col.



I was curious as to what Luther thought in regards to Gal. 5:1, and his comment is that it had to do with the conscience. That is, Christ frees us from the yoke of bondage by setting our consciences free. (I was reminded of this because this SOP quote speaks of stifling the admonitions of the conscience).

I bring it up because you're still not clearly acknowledging the God made a choice.

God could have done something, but He refused to do it, according to Maxwell. Will you acknowledge that that describes a choice made by God?

I said a long time ago that this would have been contrary to God's character. I understood that you agreed with this. I said that God could have made this choice in the same sense that that He could have chosen to sin or lie.

I don't understand what you are disagreeing with. When God does not lie, is He making a choice? Yes, He is. He is clearly physically able to say things which aren't true, just like anyone else. It is His character which determines that He will not make this choice. He could lie, but He refuses to.

I acknowledge that this describes a choice made by God.

What is it you are disagreeing with? Just semantics? Or something more substantial? If so, what?

You are right. I do agree with that.


Now that we are on the same page, agreeing that God made a choice to link life with holiness and death win sin, refusing to allow the possibility of living forever with sin, that clears away the biggest disagreement. Now that we agree that God chose to set things up that way, rather than Him finding Himself constrained to set it up that way, there's just a small item left to hammer out.

To summarize my view: God chose to link life with holiness and death with sin. We choose if we want sin or holiness. The destiny of each individual is determined by the combination of divine and human choices.

Do you agree with how I see choices determining the destiny of each individual?

Perhaps there's another thing to hammer out...


Is there another possibility available to the wicked than to die eternally? I agree that they don't want to be in heaven, but is the option of living there available to them?

You said in post# 101753 in Can the Law save us?:
When the New Jerusalem is planted on earth, can the wicked exercise his free will in a more significant way than choosing the "one possible thing that can happen"? Is he really "choosing" his destiny at this point, or has he already made his choice long before this time?

And as far as each sinner making his final choice, do you agree with me that some of them make the choice to die, not necessarily knowing clearly how it is going to play out and that their death is fundamentally caused by the lack of a connection with the Life?

I guess we can consider this some more, because I would say that God *was* constrained to do things the way He did. He was constrained by His character.

I would not say that He chose to set things up the way He did because that makes it sound like He could have done things in some other way, and the way He did it was arbitrary.

One could say that God chooses not to lie or sin, which is certainly true, since God has free will, but one could also say, as Scripture does, that "God cannot lie." In the same sense that "God cannot lie," we can say "God can not set up prisons in which the wicked will spend all etenity."



No, I don't. I don't believe that life is linked with righteousness because God chose for things to be that way. Nor do I believe that sin is linked to death because He chose for things to be that way. I do not believe that God could have chosen for sin to be linked with life, or righteousness to be linked with death.

I believe "the inevitable result of sin is death," is a statement in regards to the nature of sin and death, as opposed to a statement in regards to what God chose to do.

Again, I would draw your attention to DA 764, which discusses this. You pointed out that "arbitrary" in this passage means "individual discretion," with which I agree. She says the destruction of the wicked is not due to an act of power depending upon God's individual discretion, but is due to their decisions. To do what? To separate themselves from God, who alone is the source of life.

So if God is choosing to set things up in a certain way, He is choosing to set things up so that life is in Him, and apart from Him there is only death. But is this really something that God "set up"? Or is it simply a description of reality? In God is life, because God is life. Apart from God, there is no life. Not because God does something to make this so, but because that's the way things are.

It seems to me there may be two points we are disagreeing on here:

1.Does righteousness result in life, and sin result in death, because God set things up this way? Or are these consequences due to something inate about rightoueness and sin?

2.Is it possible that God could have set things up in some other way, where righteousness would result in death, and sin result in life?

Actually 2 seems to follow from 1, so maybe there's just one point of disagreement, or clarification, which has to do with whether sin results in death because of the nature of what sin is, or because of something God does or decided.

From GC 542, 543:



This looks to me to be a description of reality, as opposed to something imposed upon the wicked. I believe none in the second resurrection will be saved because, and only because, they don't want to be. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves. If they wanted heaven, they could have it. But they don't want it, so God allows them to exercize their free will, just like always.



I'm sure that those who choose to be lost are not fully aware of the implications of this decision, if that's what you're asking. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, and by choosing not to be spiritural, they are of necessity making choices that they cannot possibly understand fully.

Then you do not agree with me or Maxwell. We say God could have, but refused to. You say God could not. That is a significant disagreement. Good thing I brought it up again, so we can clarify that.

That's another point of disagreement. You believe that sinners have the option of going to heaven if they want; I don't. For me, the soul that sins shall die; no other option.

It seems the differences in our views can be summed up this way: You believe God was constrained to do what He did, and sinners have the option to choose whatever they want. I believe God can choose whatever He wants, and sinners are constrained to live in God's world.

Does that sound about right?

Really? You are sure Maxwell believes God could have linked sin to life, or righteousness to death if he wanted to?

This is most not the impression I have of Maxwell's theology. Indeed, Maxwell has been a significant influence to my theology. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion here?

Of course, Maxwell has recorded much more on tapes than in books, but I recall his tapes emphasizing that God wants us to do that which is right not because God tells us to, but because we have a convinction ourselves that it is right. Now if right is right only because God says so, I fail to see any logic to Maxwell's assertion.

It seems to me that Maxwell argues over and over again against the arbitrary scenario you are suggesting.

Here is something from "Servants and Friends"



He compares sin to poison. This is what I've been saying.

I had a whole thing typed out and ready to send, and then poof! gone! I don't know how, or where it went. So, take two.

First of all, I said nothing at all about options. The existence of an option is a different concept.

What I said was if the wicked wanted heaven, they could have it. How is this different than saying that the exclusion of the wicked from heaven is voluntary with themselves? The point is simply that God does not force the wicked from heaven against their will. He simply gives them what they choose. God at no point violates their freedom of choice.




Again, I said nothing about options. Regarding that the soul that sins shall die, this is just another way of saying that death is the inevitable result of sin, which I've been saying all along. So your adding "for me" is superfluous.



Regarding God's being constrained, I said He is constrained by His character. Do you disagree with this?

Regarding sinners, I said nothing about their having an option.



I affirmed this several times, right?



It doesn't seem to me that this world can in any fair sense be called "God's world." Jesus taught us to pray "Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven." If God's will were done here, it could be fairly called His world.

This is, again, the Maxwell interview that you supplied (emphasis mine):

The interview said nothing about linking sin to life or righteousness to death. Also, you didn't address my points, namely this one:



nor the quote I provided from "Servants or Friends" where Maxwell equates sin with poison.

Regarding prisons, I said that God could have allowed the wicked to continue to live in the same sense that He could sin or lie. You said you agreed with this. I would say this is equivalent to saying that He does not do so because He is so constrained by His character. Why do you disagree with this?

Read the quote again:
What more do you want? The guy asks, "Is there any way in which God could have made it so that everybody could ... disobey him and go on living?"

disobey = sin
go on living = life

Maxwell's answer is Yes. My answer is Yes. What is your answer to the question?


I ignored them for now, until I have time to explain my view on that.


I agree with what you said there. I believe God was constrained by Himself - His character - to do what He did.

Our disagreement lies in that you don't see that as God choosing. OTC, I see that as God exercising His will - a choice.

Consider this. Why do sinners prefer death over life? Why can't they just decide to live with God, instead of burning? It is because God is the anti-thesis of their characters. Their characters constrain them to choose death rather than life with God. Do you agree?

1.Regarding Maxwell and prison, it seems to me you've broken a cardinal law of Maxwell. Maxwell speaks of asking two questions when reading someone.
a.What did the person actually say?
b.What did the person mean when they said what they said?

Regarding the prisons, Maxwell's point was that God had the physical ability to keep people alive indefinitely. However, this is not something God would actually do, because of His character.

Maxwell is not saying that God could have set things up so that sin leads to life, and righteousenss to death. You're completely misreading his intent if this is the conclusion you come to. For one thing, there's more to eternal life (the context of righteous => life is eternal life) than simply continuing to physically exist and for another, there were two parts to the equation, the second being that righteousness leads to death. So you have to establish that Maxwell believed that too if you want to assert that he taught that God could have set things up so that sin=> life and righteousness => death.

I've equated God's choice here, in regards to prison, with His choice not to sin or lie. I've pointed out that Scripture says "God cannot lie." In the same sense one could say "God cannot set up prisons for the wicked." I'm sure Maxwell would agree with this. Why not? It's in perfect harmony with the intent of his comment.

In the same way God chooses not to lie and refuses to lie, He chooses not to set up prisons and refuses to do so. As God "cannot lie," He cannot set up prisons.

2.Since we agree that God is constrained by His character, we need to throw out your previous statement:



I've never said that God cannot choose to do what He wants, and you agree with me regarding God's being constrained about His character, so once again I ask, what are you disagreeing with?

3.We've both agreed that God has freedom of choice and makes choices. I don't know why you keep insinuating that I don't see God as choosing. You have agreed that God is constrained by His character. Where am I saying something different than what you believe?



The quotes I cited in GC 543 and DA 764, also DA 107,108 speak directly to this.



Yes. God is constrained by His character, and the wicked are constrained by theirs.

Good we agree there. I think this should clear things up quite a bit.

• At some point, the wicked have the opportunity to choose to have life or death.
• But they are constrained by their characters to choose the option of death.
• This can be described as making a voluntary discretionary choice to die.

I assume you agree with that logic, since that's what I think you've been saying all this time.

Now, here's what I've been saying all this time:

• At some point, God has the opportunity to choose to link sin with life or death.
• But He is constrained by His character to choose the option of death.
• This can be described as making a voluntary discretionary choice to link sin with death.

Since the two arguments use the same logic, they are equally valid or invalid.

Where did I break his cardinal law, since that's exactly what I thought he meant?

Can I cook and eat my son? Yes and no. I can cut him up, put him in the oven, and put pieces of him in my mouth, but my character constrains me from doing that.

Is that a discretionary choice? Absolutely! We know of others who have made the other choice.


You're adding new rules to our game. I'm not here to win any argument, but to find truth.

What God chose to do with righteousness/life is beside the point. What is before us is if He could have linked sin and life. Period.

It seems the three of us say Yes. So there's no reason to muddy the waters that are muddy enough.


In the same way I cannot eat my son. I'm able to, but I refuse. I will choose to die rather than do that.


The big disagreement is over whether or not "sinners have the option to choose whatever they want" at the end of the Millennium. You say they can choose life or death at that point, but voluntarily choose death. I say they have no options, and therefore no choice in the matter. Choice requires more than one option.


I say that being constrained by one's character constitutes a choice. Do you agree with that? (See the argument in my previous post - #101899.)

There's no way he meant to say that God could have set things up so that sin would lead to life and righteousness would lead to death. That is certainly putting words into his mouth.




Pardon? I said, "I do not believe that God could have chosen for sin to be linked with life, or righteousness to be linked with death." to which you replied, "Then you do not agree with me or Maxwell. We say God could have, but refused to."

You are the one who made this claim. To what purpose? How is this helping to "find truth"?

I don't believe your claim here is true. I don't believe Maxwell was intending to say that God could have righteousness linked to death.



No, not "period." I said, "I do not believe that God could have chosen for sin to be linked with life, or righteousness to be linked with death." If you're going to respond to this with the claim, "Then you don't agree with me or Maxwell," you need to consider what I actually said!



How is this helping to find truth, Arthur? First of all, you're not dealing with what I actually said. Secondly, in what possible way is a statement like this useful for "finding truth"?



You are agreeing with my point.



No!! This is not the big disagreement. I have said nothing about sinners having the option to choose what they want. Your quote marks are surrounding something *you* said, not me. Why did you do this? That's very misleading.



I didn't say this, Arnold. Please re-read what I wrote.



Again, I said nothing about options. Regarding choice, I said their exclusion from heaven is voluntary. Do you agree with this? "Voluntary" means they are making a choice, doesn't it?



This is just semantics. I see no meaningful difference in our positions here.

What you are saying is basically the following. God could choose to kill us, put us in a soup, and eat us, but His character does not allow Him to do this. Therefore He is making a discretionary choice not to do this.

Ok, this is true, but isn't this a rather odd way to think about it? How is this conveying any useful information?

The point I've been making is that the fate of the wicked is decided by themselves, their own choices, as opposed to an act based on the individual discretion of God. Isn't this what DA 764 says? You were the one who suggested "individual discretion" as the meaning for "arbitrary" used there. I simply agreed with your definition.

Then forget it. It's a red herring that's only causing confusion.

Interviewer asked Maxwell if God could have set it up so that sinners can go on living. Maxwell said God could have, but refused to. I agree. Don't you agree with that?

If you do, then the basic premise is settled.

Here's what you actually said: "I do not believe that God could have chosen for sin to be linked with life, or righteousness to be linked with death."

Do you mean that "God could not have chosen for sin to be linked with life and God could not have chosen for righteousness to be linked with death"? That's what I think you meant. Am I right?

Regarding #101889,

God is life and life abides in Him. One cannot be separated from God and have life. When one choose to separate from God, one chooses to die:



This is not a choice God makes, but a choice the wicked make.

Here's something which I've found helpful in regards to what we've been discussing:

There is nothing, save the selfish heart of man, that lives unto itself. No bird that cleaves the air, no animal that moves upon the ground, but ministers to some other life. There is no leaf of the forest, or lowly blade of grass, but has its ministry. Every tree and shrub and leaf pours forth that element of life without which neither man nor animal could live; and man and animal, in turn, minister to the life of tree and shrub and leaf. The flowers breathe fragrance and unfold their beauty in blessing to the world. The sun sheds its light to gladden a thousand worlds. The ocean, itself the source of all our springs and fountains, receives the streams from every land, but takes to give. The mists ascending from its bosom fall in showers to water the earth, that it may bring forth and bud.

The angels of glory find their joy in giving,--giving love and tireless watchcare to souls that are fallen and unholy. Heavenly beings woo the hearts of men; they bring to this dark world light from the courts above; by gentle and patient ministry they move upon the human spirit, to bring the lost into a fellowship with Christ which is even closer than they themselves can know.

But turning from all lesser representations, we behold God in Jesus. Looking unto Jesus we see that it is the glory of our God to give. "I do nothing of Myself," said Christ; "the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father." "I seek not Mine own glory," but the glory of Him that sent Me. John 8:28; 6:57; 8:50; 7:18. In these words is set forth the great principle which is the law of life for the universe. All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the Father's life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life.

In heaven itself this law was broken. (DA 20, 21)

This speaks of the "law of life" of the universe. What is the law? It is to receive from the hand of God, and give. Give back to God, and give to others. This is the law of "life."

The contrast of this is to receive from the hand of God and not give. This is the law of death.

Selfishness can only lead to death because it's based on a death-filled principle. One cannot live for self and live because life is not predicated on living for self. It can't be. Not because of an arbitrary decision which God makes, but because of the nature of things.

God => Life
God => Love

Self => Anti-love
Self => Death

Sin => Anti-Christ => Self => Death

Yes, you got it! That's exactly what I'm saying.

That conveys useful information in that it tells you something about God's character, what He is like. If you say that God had no choice in the matter, it tells you nothing about Him.

In the same way, to say that God's character constrained Him to choose to link sin with death and righteousness with life tells us something about what kind of God we serve. However, if you say that God didn't "choose" things to be that way, but just found that He had to do it that way, that tells you nothing about God, except that He is bound by a higher power to which He is subject.

In the same way, to say that the sinner's character constrains him to choose to die rather than live with God tells us a lot about the sinner. If we say that he was merely forced to die provides no information with which to evaluate the sinner.

Where we might differ on that is the point when sinners actually have a meaningful choice between two or more options. To say that they "choose to die" while the fire is coming down tastes like sour grapes - they have no other option at that point. That's why I say their choice was made long before that.

What I wrote is perfectly clear and understandable. It's obviously not an exclusive or from the context.

If I say, "I did not go to Texas or Oklahoma" and you claim that Maxwell disagrees with this, isn't it clear that you are asserting that Maxwell is saying I neither went to Texas nor Oklahoma?

I believe sin is linked to death, and is righteousness linked to life, because of inherent properties they have, as opposed to because of an arbitrary decision on the part of God. Actually "linked to" isn't strong enough. The way the SOP puts it is better, death "is the inevitable result of sin."

She makes the point, in DA 764, that death is the inevitable result of sin, as opposed to the result of an act of individual discretion on the part of God.

How could God have no choice in the matter? Does that make any sense? Has anyone been suggesting this? This seems to be "itching where it doesn't scratch," as an old professor of mine used to say.



I think the way the SOP put it is better. Death "is the inevitable result of sin." This is as opposed to because of an arbitrary act on the part of God, as explained in DA 764.



I agree with this.



Perhaps we might disagree regarding this, but I've not made any comment on this.



This isn't clear to me. What is it you believe causes the death of the wicked? Is it literal fire coming down upon them? If so, this would have to be an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, wouldn't it? (using your definition for "arbitrary").

Arnold, I've asked you several times if you agree that the exclusion from heaven by the wicked is "voluntary with themselves." From the context, this is referring to the time after the wicked have been resurrected. I don't think you've responded. (Sorry to make you repeat yourself if you have and I've missed it).

I agree with that post, with this exception. You say things are that way because of the "nature of things." I say things are that way because God, i.e. His character, is that way. Had God been different, or if He found the "nature of things" displeasing to Him, He has the power to make things work another way.

Check this out:
Perhaps our difference is about cause and effect.

I believe that things are the way they are BECAUSE God made them that way. If God wanted things to work differently, He could have made it that way.

I don't think sin leads to death because that's the way God made sin.

Sin leads to death because of the way God made the constitution of His creatures to react to an exposure to His glory when they are in sin.

Neither do I.

That is much closer to what I believe.

Another way to look at it is that sin is, by definition, what God is not. Hence, the sinner doesn't want to have anything to do with life. And when you have no connection to the Life, all you have left is death.

An exposure of His glory sounds like chemical radiation or something like that. The glory of God is simply His character. To say that He constituted us to react to an exposure of His glory simply means that He created us with the ability to love Him and be loved by Him, as well as loving and being loved by our fellows.

He could have chosen not to make creatures to love and be loved, with the ability to appreciate His attributes of character and to know Him (like plants and animals, for example), but once He chose to make sentient beings, the rest follows from that.

The whole point I'm getting at is what I see expressed in DA 764. Death is "the inevitable result of sin" as opposed to something God does to people who act contrary to His will.

I've replenished my Ty Gibson supply. I'll present some quotes from him, and see what you think.

It seems from your comments that you agree with Maxwell's outlook on things. In this generally correct?

I agree with this. In fact, this sounds like what I've been saying. Now if we agree that life can be found only in God, how can this (the fact that sin brings death) be something which God arbitrarily set up? Wouldn't the only alternative to what you have postulated here be if life were somehow available apart from God?

When Jesus was on earth He manifested God's character without people dying because of that. What do you think that happened?

I would say that Christ divine nature was veiled when He came to talk to Adam and Eve, Abraham, and Enoch. But does anyone have any verses that gives us a hint or SOP...?

They left His presence.

I would say that God created us with the NEED to love others and be loved in return. A deficiency in that is fatal.


Death is the inevitable result of sin because that's how God made us and our environment. He didn't just find it that way; He made it that way.

And after God had set up the rule that you reap what you sow, then the onus is on each individual to sow appropriately. If he sows corruption, he will reap death.

But this setup was not arbitrary (different use of the word than in DA 764). He didn't just randomly select one of the possibilities and go with it. If one knew God well, he would have also known that this is the way God would make things, because anything else would have been "out of character" for God.

Part of God's character is its destructive effects to sin and sinners. His goodness is a consuming fire to sin's badness. And anyone who contaminates himself with sin alienates himself from God, and dies. The sinner inevitably dies because God's presence will consume him or God's absence will leave him lifeless.

Is that because that's how God found the universe? No. It is how God is, and therefore he set up the universe to work that way.

But can God suspend the way He set things up? Yes. From DA 764, we see that, "God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles." God made the universe such that sin ends in death, but He can hold that off when He chooses.

And when the time comes, He will stop postponing the reaping time. Note this quote regarding that:
When God stops shielding the sinner from the consequences of his sin, it is sometimes described as pronouncing sentence. And God is the Judge who has the authority to pronounce such sentences. In the end, or the beginning, depending on how you look at it, God was the one who made things the way they are.


I have read/heard very little from Maxwell himself. Most of what I have read/heard is not disagreeable to me. But I have reservations, because almost every one I've met who describes himself as "Maxwellian" has very disagreeable aspects to their theology.

In particular, every Maxwellian I can think of rejects the penal paradigm of the atonement. I can see truth in the "Jesus died so He can show us His love" paradigm, but I see it as a complement to the penal paradigm, not a replacement.

He couldn't have "found it," since nothing existed. The question is if He could have made it some other way. I don't believe He could, taking as a starting point that He desired to create sentient beings capable of loving Him and its fellows, and being loved by the same.

I agree that a different choice for making creatures would have been out of character for God, but believe the issue is more profound than that. It's not simply that God could have chosen to create said sentient beings differently, but didn't, because it would have been contrary to His character to do so, but there was no alternate way of creating sentient beings than the way He did, given that they should be capable of loving and being loved.

I would not make the statement that God made the universe such that sin ends in death (obviously this has to be true in some sense; God made the universe, and sin ends in death) because it gives what I believe is a false impression, which is that it could have been possible for sin not to result in death.

I don't know how familiar you are with Waggoner's thoughts on this, but I agree with them. Here's a small snippet from "The Glad Tidings"



Notice he says, "Disobedience to God's law is itself the curse." I agree with this. It's not that God curses those who sin, as if some other result were possible, like a blessing, but the disobedience (or sin) is itself the curse. Similarly "sin has death wrapped up in it." I believe this is a much better way of expressing things than simply stating that there is a link between sin and death.

I agree with your idea that God's pronouncing sentence upon the sinner is equivalent to His ceasing to shield them from the effects of sin.

Regarding Maxwell, the thing I quoted regarding poison is a good sample. That's how I see things.

Regarding the revelation being a compliment of the penal paradigm, the more I think about this the more it seems there is a conflict of interests here, so to speak. The underlying issue has to do with what is the fundamental problem that needs to be solved. I suppose one could argue that there were two independent problems which both happened to conincidentally have the same solution.

Here are a couple of difficulties I see with the penal paradigm. One is that those who hold it often get "hung up" by it so they speak of little else when discussing the atonement. A wonderful exception to this rule which jumps to mind is Robert J. Wieland, who one would have to describe as being in the penal camp (although in a more subtle way, because of his belief in corporate justification) but whose emphasis is overwhelmingly on the love of God manifested especially at the cross. Anyway I see these discussion over and over again dealing with legal technicalities on the part of those who defend the penal view with little or no emphasis on the love of God. Lip service is paid to this truth, for how could anyone deny it?, but there is not real emphasis made in its regard.

A second problem is that it presents God in a negative light. I believe EGW brings this point out eloquently here:



A third difficulty I see with the view is that it seems not to have been taught until Calvin started teaching it. Crossen's book "In Search of Paul" documents that this idea did not exist in the time of Paul. It's very clear that Jesus didn't teach it. I've repeated asked where Jesus taught it, and only this text has been presented:



However even a cursory look at this text makes it clear that Jesus is speaking of service, and not of making it legally possible for God to forgive us.

I may have digressed here. Sorry about that, but I thought it might be worthwhile making these points here.

Getting back to Maxwell, what are things which come to your mind regarding that with which you say you don't disagree?

The scapegoat is the one who dies the second death - not the Lord's goat. Jesus tasted, consumed, and conquered the cup of trembling, the cup of second death, on the cross. He died the first death, not the second death.

MM, how do you understand this?



Specifically the underlined portion. What is the "death which was ours"? The first death only? If so, how does this make sense, since we suffer this death? Isn't the point here that Christ suffered a death so that we wouldn't have to, receiving His life instead?

If we receive the life of Christ, we won't suffer the second death. That makes sense. If we receive the life of Christ, we won't suffer the first death(?) I don't see how this can work.

Yes, Jesus "suffered" the second death - but He didn't "die" the second death. Instead, He conquered it.

Since we've discussed this for several years, you must be aware that I've never said that Christ "died" the second death. So why haven't you just agreed with me during this time?

I did. Please note the first word in my last post - "Yes". Also, the 144,000 will drink of the cup that Jesus drank from, that is, the cup of second death. They will drink it during the IJ of the living. Enduring the IJ while alive is the second death experience.

Mark
10:39 Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

In the following passage she seems to describe what the 144,000 go through as their sins are being investigated in heaven and in their mind before probation closes. She also describes events that occur after probation closes.

5T 472-476
Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the Angel applies with peculiar force to the experience of God's people in the closing up of the great day of atonement. The remnant church will be brought into great trial and distress. Those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus will feel the ire of the dragon and his hosts. Satan numbers the world as his subjects, he has gained control of the apostate churches; but here is a little company that are resisting his supremacy. If he could blot them from the earth, his triumph would be complete. As he influenced the heathen nations to destroy Israel, so in the near future he will stir up the wicked powers of earth to destroy the people of God. All will be required to render obedience to human edicts in violation of the divine law. Those who will be true to God and to duty will be menaced, denounced, and proscribed. They will "be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends." {5T 472.2}

Their only hope is in the mercy of God; their only defense will be prayer. As Joshua was pleading before the Angel, so the remnant church, with brokenness of heart and earnest faith, will plead for pardon and deliverance through Jesus their Advocate. They are fully conscious of the sinfulness of their lives, they see their weakness and unworthiness, and as they look upon themselves they are ready to despair. The tempter stands by to accuse them, as he stood by to resist Joshua. He points to their filthy garments, their defective characters. He presents their weakness and folly, their sins of ingratitude, their unlikeness to Christ, which has dishonored their Redeemer. He endeavors to affright the soul with the thought that their case is hopeless, that the stain of their defilement will never be washed away. He hopes to so destroy their faith that they will yield to his temptations, turn from their allegiance to God, and receive the mark of the beast. {5T 473.1}

Satan urges before God his accusations against them, declaring that they have by their sins forfeited the divine protection, and claiming the right to destroy them as transgressors. He pronounces them just as deserving as himself of exclusion from the favor of God. "Are these," he says, "the people who are to take my place in heaven and the place of the angels who united with me? While they profess to obey the law of God, have they kept its precepts? Have they not been lovers of self more than of God? Have they not placed their own interests above His service? Have they not loved the things of the world? Look at the sins which have marked their lives. Behold their selfishness, their malice, their hatred toward one another." {5T 473.2}

The people of God have been in many respects very faulty. Satan has an accurate knowledge of the sins which he has tempted them to commit, and he presents these in the most exaggerated light, declaring: "Will God banish me and my angels from His presence, and yet reward those who have been guilty of the same sins? Thou canst not do this, O Lord, in justice. Thy throne will not stand in righteousness and judgment. Justice demands that sentence be pronounced against them." {5T 474.1}

But while the followers of Christ have sinned, they have not given themselves to the control of evil. They have put away their sins, and have sought the Lord in humility and contrition, and the divine Advocate pleads in their behalf. He who has been most abused by their ingratitude, who knows their sin, and also their repentance, declares: "'The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.' I gave My life for these souls. They are graven upon the palms of My hands." {5T 474.2}

The assaults of Satan are strong, his delusions are terrible; but the Lord's eye is upon His people. Their affliction is great, the flames of the furnace seem about to consume them; but Jesus will bring them forth as gold tried in the fire. Their earthliness must be removed that the image of Christ may be perfectly reflected; unbelief must be overcome; faith, hope, and patience are to be developed. {5T 474.3}

The people of God are sighing and crying for the abominations done in the land. With tears they warn the wicked of their danger in trampling upon the divine law, and with unutterable sorrow they humble themselves before the Lord on account of their own transgressions. The wicked mock their sorrow, ridicule their solemn appeals, and sneer at what they term their weakness. But the anguish and humiliation of God's people is unmistakable evidence that they are regaining the strength and nobility of character lost in consequence of sin. It is because they are drawing nearer to Christ, and their eyes are fixed upon His perfect purity, that they so clearly discern the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Their contrition and self-abasement are infinitely more acceptable in the sight of God than is the self-sufficient, haughty spirit of those who see no cause to lament, who scorn the humility of Christ, and who claim perfection while transgressing God's holy law. Meekness and lowliness of heart are the conditions for strength and victory. The crown of glory awaits those who bow at the foot of the cross. Blessed are these mourners, for they shall be comforted. {5T 474.4}

The faithful, praying ones are, as it were, shut in with God. They themselves know not how securely they are shielded. Urged on by Satan, the rulers of this world are seeking to destroy them; but could their eyes be opened, as were the eyes of Elisha's servant at Dothan, they would see the angels of God encamped about them, by their brightness and glory holding in check the hosts of darkness. {5T 475.1}

As the people of God afflict their souls before Him, pleading for purity of heart, the command is given, "Take away the filthy garments" from them, and the encouraging words are spoken, "Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment." The spotless robe of Christ's righteousness is placed upon the tried, tempted, yet faithful children of God. The despised remnant are clothed in glorious apparel, nevermore to be defiled by the corruptions of the world. Their names are retained in the Lamb's book of life, enrolled among the faithful of all ages. They have resisted the wiles of the deceiver; they have not been turned from their loyalty by the dragon's roar. Now they are eternally secure from the tempter's devices. Their sins are transferred to the originator of sin. And the remnant are not only pardoned and accepted, but honored. "A fair miter" is set upon their heads. They are to be as kings and priests unto God. While Satan was urging his accusations and seeking to destroy this company, holy angels, unseen, were passing to and fro, placing upon them the seal of the living God. These are they that stand upon Mount Zion with the Lamb, having the Father's name written in their foreheads. They sing the new song before the throne, that song which no man can learn save the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. "These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God." {5T 475.2}

Now is reached the complete fulfillment of those words of the Angel: "Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth My servant the Branch." Christ is revealed as the Redeemer and Deliverer of His people. Now indeed are the remnant "men wondered at," as the tears and humiliation of their pilgrimage give place to joy and honor in the presence of God and the Lamb. "In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even everyone that is written among the living in Jerusalem." {5T 476.1}

Now as I comprehend the nature of Christ better, it gives me a deeper understanding of how Christ was seperated from the divinity which He had always been part of. He had never known a time when He was not connected to the Godhead, and here he was, that is what the second death is all about.

Amen! He clearly tasted the second death experience. He drained the cup. But He conquered it on our behalf. Satan will die with our sins and second death in the lake of fire.

This is an interesting play with words, however it's a play leaving to confusion.

Sorry for not reading the whole discussion and asking you to clarify in case it was already mentioned.

Could you please tell me if Jesus died on the cross or not? And if He did died, what death did he die?

BTW, Did anyone establish the definition of the 2nd death and the definition of the 1st death?

Elle, good question. Jesus experienced ("tasted") the second death beginning in Gethsemane and ending on Golgotha. However, He died the first death. This is evidenced by the fact He rose from the grave. A basic difference between the two types of deaths is there is no resurrection from the second death. Satan will perish with the sins and second death of the righteous.

Very good. And this separation is really what sin is all about. (Isa. 59:1.2.) Jesus connects us with the only Source of Immortality there is (1 Tim. 6:13-16.)

This is why understanding the nature of Christ, (GodHead/Trinity) is essential. You have to understand who God is and how He became flesh and suffered the death we deserve, and how He was 'sundered' when He laided down His life.

Jesus "tasted" the FIRST Death

It is true that Jesus died the first death which is the physical death on the cross. This is the death he has “tasted” (g1089 geuomai, to taste; by implication, to eat; figurartively, to experience).

Jesus refered to this “tasting of death” as the first death in Mat 16:28 [i]“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste (g1089 geuomai, to experience) of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (see also Mar 9:1; Luk 9:27; Jn 8:52) Here Jesus is referring that some will not taste death(die the first death) at his second coming. Here we are talking about the first death, not the second.

First Death = Physical, Second Death = Spiritual(Submission)

However, I do believe that Jesus also died the second death as you said from Gethsedmane to Golgotha, and I will add also at his baptism and even when He will succeed to subdue all things under him(1Cor 15:28), Jesus will submit to His Father even when the Great Controversy will be over so that the Father can be All in All. Jesus’ life on earth and before and after = always-- is a continual submission to His Father, as Paul refers to this as dyeing daily.

The second death is a spiritual death as opposed to the first death which is physical. Jesus described the first death as only a sleep because He knew that He will swallow up death with His resurrection.

There is a first death and a second death, like there is a first birth and a second birth. The first birth is physical, and the second is spiritual, just like it is for the first death which is physical and the second is spiritual. The physical is first, then the spiritual is second which is explained in 1 Cor 15:44,46 “There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body... Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterwards that which is spiritual."

For us, the second death is the process of " DYING TO SIN", "BURYING THE OLD MAN OF SIN". It is a Spiritual Death and not a physical death.

Elle, thank you. Yes, there is a spiritual aspect of the second death experience. However, there is also the literal aspect of the experience. That is, at the end of time, after the second resurrection, the wicked will revisit their sins and perish in the lake of fire in the consuming presence of God's fiery glory. In this sense, it is Satan who will suffer and perish with our sins and second death - not Jesus.

The wages of sin is death. What death? The pain of hopeless separation from God. Did Christ experience that? "My God, My God,
why have you forsaken me." Incidently, if the wages of sin is suffering eternal torment in hell, then there is no hope for anybody, because that is not the price that Christ paid.

Mike, you are making the water quite muddy by fusing the definition of the 2nd Death with the 1st Death. They are distinct and totally separate and needs to be refered and viewed with their disctinction. The first death is a physical death which deals with the physical body, whereas the second is a spiritual death which deals with the spiritual aspect of the person. .

1st Death= Physical Death – This is what Jesus TASTED at the cross(see Mat 16:28) = also Jesus calls it a sleep.

Your statememt above is not true. According to Mat 16:28, Jesus define the “tasting of death” as the first death – which is a physical death.

2nd Death = Spiritual Death – This death has noting to do with the physical body it is a spiritual experience which for us is a repentance from following our own ways and its result is a Submission to the Father’s Will which Jesus has demonstrated always.


Since your understanding and definition of the Second Death is not in harmony with scriptures therefore your interpretations of the lake of fire needs revision.

Are you saying that the second death is the seperation from God? If so, it's still not the Biblical definition.

Also, is your main point here on the eternal aspect of hell? However you do believe in the torment in hell which will result in the anihilation of the person? Right? There's not much difference in these doctrines. Both is based on a punitive judgment system which is the way of the WORLD.

God's judgments that He showed us in the Law of Moses are Righteous Judgments based on Mercy which restore the offender by making him pay restitution to the victim.

The punitive Judgment of this WORLD and in the anihilation doctrine does not (1)restore the offender and (2)bring restitution to the victim. Therefore Justice is not served.

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Rev. 20:14&15.
What is the result of death being cast into the fire? Rev 21:4
"And God shall wipe all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death." Whatever is cast into the lake of fire is consumed.
Malachi 4:1,3 "For behold, the day cometh, that shall burn them as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall leave them neither root nor branch.(3)
And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under
the souls of your feet in the day that I shall do this,saith the Lord of hosts." Now link this with Isa. 59:2
"But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you." The first death is described as a sleep, because for every one there will be a resurrection. But in the second death, there is no resurrection,
but as it says in 2 Thess. 1:9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. When Christ took our sin upon Him, He experienced the hiding of His Father's face and the prospect of eternal destruction from his Fathers presence, the hopeless despair of the second death. Gal. 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written Cursed (by God) is everyone that hangeth on a tree."
That is why the jews wanted Him crucified, even though the punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning. If they could get him on the cross, it would prove that He could not be the Messiah, because He would be dying the death of one cursed of God. The wages of sin is not a temporary sleep, as is the first death, but to be cut off from God with no hope of resurrection,
the second death.

My understanding of the 2nd death is being resurrected from the 1st death, which is the 2nd resurrection at the end of the 1,000 years, or resurrection of those who rejected Christ,only to suffer the 2nd death from which there will not be another resurrection. As the 1st death is physical and the 1st resurrection will also be physical, the 2nd resurrection will also be physical and the resulting 2nd death will also be physical.

So do you think Christ died the first death?

No, if the wages of sin is the first death, and if that is what Christ died, then how come Christians are still dying? If Christ took my place and died for me, I still die the first death, but
not the second death, because that is the death Christ experienced for me. It was not the death of a martyr or a saint, but the death of a liar, an adulterer, a murderer, and everything that is bad, as He took our sin upon Himself, or as Isaiah says, "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Or as 2 Cor. 5:21 says,
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." No wonder Paul exclaimed, "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things." Rom. 8:32.

Justice not served?
The wages of sin is death.
I can accept Christs death for me and live and justice is served.
If I do not accept Christs death for me, then I have to pay the wages of sin, death myself. In both cases justice is served.