Moral Influence Theory versus Penal Substitution.

I was reading the biography of A. Graham Maxwell when I came over this issue. It was said that charges have been made that Maxwell taught the moral influence theory of the atonement although Maxwell denied it. So I went to see what this was all about and here is what I found....

The moral influence view of the atonement teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity. As the Roman Empire split in the fourth century AD along a geographic and linguistic divide (the Latin West and Greek East), so too Christianity eventually divided between the western Catholic Church and the eastern Orthodox Church. Eastern Orthodox Christianity flourished in the Byzantine Empire and a great many theologians composed extensive theological works on Christian doctrine. Byzantine theologians emphasized strongly the importance of moral transformation, and the moral influence view of the atonement can be found universally throughout their writings.

The moral influence doctrine of atonement is typically taught within a paradigm of salvation which focuses on positive moral change as the core of Christianity. God is depicted as concerned with whether a person's inner character is good or evil (where 'good' refers primarily to unselfish love toward others). In this system, God works to bring positive moral change within the hearts of individuals and to transform societies to become more loving. He acted to bring such change through the teachings of the Old Testament Law, the Jewish Prophets, and the teaching and example of Jesus. The inspiring power of Jesus' martyrdom and subsequent resurrection are also often cited as catalysts for moral change. Many holding a moral influence view also believe that the Holy Spirit works to help people toward moral change. In the moral influence view, it is generally believed that God will judge the souls of the dead in the afterlife based on their moral character, attested to by their conduct (a belief that many Evangelical Protestants reject). Most advocates of the view strongly endorse the concept of Free Will, insisting that humans are responsible for their actions and capable of change. However, some advocates (e.g. Augustine) have held the view that humans are incapable of moral change themselves and require God to radically alter their psychology through the Holy Spirit working in them. The moral influence model of atonement is usually associated with a minimal doctrine of Original Sin or complete denial thereof, although not always (again Augustine is a notable exception).

Advocates of the moral influence over the centuries have ranged from those who fully affirm the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and the fully divine nature of Jesus Christ, to those who claim that Jesus was fully human and not deity. The moral influence model stands somewhat separate from such questions about the divine nature of Christ. It tends to emphasize the following aspects of Christ' work:

Teacher and Prophet - a majority of the Gospel accounts focus on Jesus' teachings. These teachings focus largely on individual and social morality, and encourage love.

Example - many New Testament passages speak of imitating Christ and following his example. The Gospel accounts provide a rich body of material from which early Christians drew examples.

Founder and Leader - the Church movement has a large role in the moral influence view, as its purpose is to continue to morally transform individuals and societies.

Martyr - Jesus' crucifixion is viewed as a martyrdom, in which he was killed as a consequence of his activity to bring moral transformation.

However the moral influence view can be combined with some of the other views of atonement.

During the Reformation in Western Christianity, the majority of the Reformers strongly rejected the moral influence view of the atonement in favor of penal substitution. The moral influence view has historically come into conflict with a penal substitutionary view of atonement, as the two systems propose radically different criteria of salvation and judgment. The moral influence paradigm focuses on the moral change of people, leading to a positive final judgment for which the criteria focuses on inner moral character. By contrast, a penal substitutionary paradigm denies the saving value of human moral change. It focuses on faith in Christ and on his death on our behalf, leading to a positive final judgment based on what Christ has done for us and our trust in that - not on any positive moral qualities that we ourselves possess.

As a result of these conflicts, a strong division has remained since the Reformation between liberal Protestants (who typically adopt a moral influence view) and conservative Protestants (who typically adopt a penal substitutionary view). Debate between these positions has a tendency to focus on the following main issues:

Advocates of the moral influence view point to:

The large volume of teaching in the Gospels focused on morality.

The large quantity of moral exhortation in the New Testament letters.

The 30+ New Testament passages referring to final judgment that all appear to depict a final judgment according to moral conduct.

The numerous passages throughout the New Testament which encourage moral change and provide the goal of passing God's final judgment as the incentive.

The various passages in the New Testament letters which speak of the effect of Jesus' life and death on us in terms of moral change.

Those opposed to the moral influence view have typically pointed to the following biblical themes:

Paul's statements that salvation is by 'faith'.
Paul's teaching against 'works of the law'.
Passages speaking of the effects of Christ's death, often using language from the Jewish sacrificial system.

Defences of penal substitution have typically focused on these passages and argued that they teach salvation by faith not works.

What is everyones thoughts....

Moral Influence - - Christ really did not have to die. But He did to give us a good example, and to show us what God was really like.

Penal Substitution - - The LAW demands death for sin, so somebody had to die. Christ took our place. The innocent punished for the guilty, so the guilty can go free. (Would you like to live next to an untransformed pardoned pedophile? - I think not.)

I was a student of Graham Maxwell. He did not teach moral influence. He did not teach penal substitution.

The funny thing is, there is a moral influence from Christ, but the writers of the 'Moral Influence doctrines' are way off.

After the Penal substitution, or Christ Imputing His righteousness for us, Christs Moral influences are imparted to us. So I believe this is the same issue we are going through today on the level of Law/Works.

Jesus died to pay our sin debt of death. He thereby earned the right to pardon and to save penitent sinners. His life and death satisfied the just and loving demands of law and justice. It also motivates believers to love, serve, and obey Jesus. He disproved Satan's accusations and verified the truth. The Great Controversy will be forever settled when Jesus demonstrates the truth through the 144,000 during the Great Time of Trouble.

So you agree with the idea of Penal Substitution?

I'm not sure I know everything about the Penal Substitution view. I do believe Jesus' life and death was necessary to satisfy law and justice and to pardon and save penitent sinners.

That the thing that keeps coming into my mind is WHY? What was it about Jesus' death that makes it possible to us to be saved? Is it just a legal settlement that has been provided? Graham Maxwell was mentioned in the OP; his current replacement has a very legal, "forensic" model of salvation. Quite the opposite of Maxwell, who had a trust(faith)/healing model of salvation. The root words translated save or salvation, point to a healing, rescue.

Wiki; Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment.

"In the Garden of Gethsemane Christ suffered in man’s stead, and the human nature of the Son of God staggered under the terrible horror of the guilt of sin, until from His pale and quivering lips was forced the agonizing cry, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me”.... Human nature would then and there have died under the horror of the sense of sin, had not an angel from heaven strengthened Him to bear the agony.... Christ was suffering the death that was pronounced upon the transgressors of God’s law." {AG 168.2}

The main group of people who differ with our view of Penal Substitution (which we call atonement) are the Catholics.

Jesus died our second death for us in Gethsemane.

"As Christ felt His unity with the Father broken up, He feared that in His human nature He would be unable to endure the coming conflict with the powers of darkness. In the wilderness of temptation the destiny of the human race had been at stake. Christ was then conqueror. Now the tempter had come for the last fearful struggle. For this he had been preparing during the three years of Christ’s ministry. Everything was at stake with him. If he failed here, his hope of mastery was lost; the kingdoms of the world would finally become Christ’s; he himself would be overthrown and cast out. But if Christ could be overcome, the earth would become Satan’s kingdom, and the human race would be forever in his power. With the issues of the conflict before Him, Christ’s soul was filled with dread of separation from God. Satan told Him that if He became the surety for a sinful world, the separation would be eternal. He would be identified with Satan’s kingdom, and would nevermore be one with God. {DA 686.5}

"It was the anguish of separation from His Father’s favor that made Christ’s sufferings so acute. As the agony of soul came upon Him, “His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:44). His terrible anguish, caused by the thought that in this hour of need God had forsaken Him, portrays the anguish that the sinner will feel when, too late, he realizes that God’s Spirit is withdrawn from him.—MS 134, 1905. {2MCP 464.4}

"In yielding up His precious life, Christ was not upheld by triumphant joy. His heart was rent with anguish and oppressed with gloom. But it was not the fear or the pain of death that caused His suffering. It was the crushing weight of the sin of the world, a sense of separation from His Father’s love. This was what broke the Saviour’s heart, and brought His death so soon. {SJ 145.1}
Christ felt the woe that sinners will feel when they awake to realize the burden of their guilt, to know that they have forever separated themselves from the joy and peace of Heaven. {SJ 145.2}
Angels beheld with amazement the agony of despair borne by the Son of God. His anguish of mind was so intense that the pain of the cross was hardly felt. {SJ 145.3}

"Had his suffering consisted in bodily pain alone, then his death was no more painful than that of some of the martyrs; but bodily pain was only a small part of the agony of the beloved Son of God as he hung upon the cross. The sins of the world were upon him, and also the sense of his Father’s wrath against the sinner, as he suffered the penalty of the law. It was these that crushed his divine soul. It was the hiding of his Father’s face, a feeling that his own dear Father had forsaken him as he drank the cup which the sinner so richly merited, that brought despair to his soul. The separation that sin makes between God and man was fully realized and keenly felt by the innocent, suffering Man of Calvary. He was oppressed by the powers of darkness, and had not one ray of light to brighten the future. His mental agony on this account was so great that man can have but a faint conception of it. {BEcho January 1, 1887, par. 9}

"Let the converting power of God be experienced in the heart of the individual [church] members, and then we shall see the deep moving of the Spirit of God. Mere forgiveness of sin is not the sole result of the death of Jesus. He made the infinite sacrifice not only that sin might be removed, but that human nature might be restored, rebeautified, reconstructed from its ruins, and made fit for the presence of God. (3SM 154)

Amen.

I found the perfect sermon that illustrates this from Joe Crews, the founder of Amazing Facts. From his sermon and booklet;

"The High cost of the cross".

"The question is; how does Christ's death make it possible for Him to forgive sin? This brings us to the crux of all we have learned so far. It was necessary for Jesus to suffer the second death in order to acquire the power to forgive.

The germ of all forgiveness is rooted in an act of substitution. Whoever forgives another person must actually substitute himself for the one he forgives, and be willing to suffer the consequences of the wrong done...

This illustration brings us very close to the heart of the atonement.

The punishment for sin is not the first death, but the second death. That is why the protracted agony of Jesus on the cross was totally unlike any other death. Thousands of criminals were crucified in the same physical way that Christ was nailed to the cross, but they suffered only the bodily pain of the first death. He experienced the awful condemnation and separation from God that the vilest of sinners will feel in the lake of fire. His sensitive nature was traumatized by sharing vicariously the guilt of foul rapes, murders, and atrocities. He became sin in order to allow the full wrath of the law to fall upon Him in exactly the same way it would fall upon the lost.

In no other way can we explain the mysterious anguish of spirit which surrounded our Savior in His closing hours of life. From the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus bore the accumulated sins of mankind on His breaking heart. Not one ray of light was permitted to penetrate the blanket of total alienation from His Father in heaven. In order to take the place of guilty sinners and to provide forgiveness there could be no difference in their penalty and His penalty.

Let no one suggest that the Father did not suffer equally with His Son. The divine forbearance of God in allowing wicked men to torture His Son to death is the ultimate proof that He loves us with the same love that He loved Jesus."

Love that guy.

Too bad Tom has been MIA for a while. I'm sure he would have a few words on this topic.

I don't see why we have to choose one or the other. Both sides have truth.

But there are also errors. Christ's death was not optional, but neither was it the end of the Christian's experience.

James - what is your definition of "forgive".

APL; If you are asking me this to contend with what I wrote above, you will need to be more descriptive in your question.

I have not heard Joe's lecture. If what you write above is the heart of the issue, the it seems that he have a very legal view of the atonement. I like very much what Moutainman quoted above from EGW in (3SM 154). To this I would add the following:So the Cross, is not a skillful legal solution. The Cross is a divine remedy for sin, and cure of the transgression. We are back to the healing model, which penal substitution is blind to, and for which the moral influence theory can not explain. Mountainman quote: Thus, the atonement, as Graham Maxwell taught as a trust/healing model, not a legal, penal substitution model, or just a nice influence model. He taught that the healing arts was the closest model to salvation, and thus he taught at Loma Linda University. Graham's current replacement teaches a very legal model. Sin is not a legal problem. It is a real problem.

The opening paragraph of the book, The Ministry of Healing, describes Christ' mission. This is a HEALING model, not a legal model. Isaiah 53:3-4 nails it, as quoted by Matthew 8:17. Isaiah 53 also contains the Bible definition of Grace, in verse 11. (compare Isaiah 53:11 with Titus 3:5-7) Grace is not a legal pardon, but the healing of a knowledgeable physician.

APL,

According to the healing model, was Enoch healed? If he was, did Jesus have to die for him? If so, why?

APL, what do you make of the following insights:


1. Mere forgiveness of sin is not the sole result of the death of Jesus.
2. He made the infinite sacrifice not only that sin might be removed . . .
3. . . . but that human nature might be restored, rebeautified, reconstructed from its ruins, and made fit for the presence of God.

Dear APL, you do know that many SDA Theologians disagree with Graham Maxwell don't you?

Dr Samuel Bacchiocchi equated Maxwell's theory with the moral influence theory.

The law demands the death of the sinner, but grace allows the giver of the law to take the place of the sinner and this heals the sinner from sin. This much I would agree.

I do believe that the solution for sin 'cured' the sin problem, but we have to look at it from the foundation of the biblical images God gave in His sacrificial system. This system was instituted for the purpose of giving us a scene to watch to see His intent in the plan of salvation.

Was the man who took the sin offering called a doctor or a priest?

Did the lamb walk away healed or dead?

Was there blood involved? Was there death? Then it was an atonement for forgiveness, not a pill.

The death of the Lamb takes our place in the second resurrection.

Excellent point Brother Mt Man.

"God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law. Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary. The death of the spotless Son of God testifies that “the wages of sin is death,” that every violation of God’s law must receive its just retribution. Christ the sinless became sin for man. He bore the guilt of transgression, and the hiding of His Father’s face, until His heart was broken and His life crushed out. All this sacrifice was made that sinners might be redeemed. In no other way could man be freed from the penalty of sin. And every soul that refuses to become a partaker of the atonement provided at such a cost must bear in his own person the guilt and punishment of transgression.... {DD 16.4}

Jesus was the lamb slain (or written) from the foundation of the world, Revelation 13:8. See also 1 Peter 1:19-20 and Patriarchs and Prophets, page 63, par 3.

I thought you presenting this quote was fabulous. That is why I quoted it above, and shared it with one of my study partners. Also why I included this quote which I will repeat:
The death of Christ is not for "mere forgiveness" and is not a "mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned". It is a divine remedy for the cure of transgression. The means that the righteousness of Christ is both upon us and in our characters. It is the restoration, the reconstruction of our ruined nature. Mere forgiveness does not do this. We need to be born again. A total transformation.

Exactly, the refined nature of men who have been redeemed actually acts as a testimony to God's grace for eternity.

After men have made it past the end of probation, at the resurrection of the righteous, the people who are transformed become kings and priests, because we have gone through the experience. We get to testify to the unfallen worlds who have passed their probation at the same time, to the grace of God.

Jesus told His true disciples that we get to sit with Him on His throne by overcoming. This is the strongest part of the true Adventist message, and makes our testimony stand out distinctively.

It has to be presented in the perfect light of scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, confirmed by the Spirit of Prophecy, not by the round about way presented by made up doctrines.

Not to boast, but most likely much better that you do.

Ah - another one of my teachers. Did you know either of these personally? Yes, there are many that said that Graham taught moral influence theory. There are many that did not understand, and still don't. Most are very legalistic in their own theory of the atonement.

Did you understand the Biblical definition of grace I gave above? Did you understand the implication of the quote I gave of EGW and the one mountainman gave? Just merely being forgiven will not make us acceptable to be in God's presence. God is forgiveness personified. Only by a total restoration will we be able to be in the presence of God. See the quote mountainman posted.

do you know the definition of the word, "doctor"? How about a priest? Is Jesus a priest? What makes Him able to be our able High Priest? Hebrews 2:17-18 Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

Who kills the lamb?

In the end, what kills the sinner?

Understand the most who have a legal model of the atonement, have God being the executioner in the end. After all, God is not only loving, He is also just, they will say. But they ignore the Bible which says, the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death (James 1:15). And on the cross, did God kill Jesus? Jesus died the second death, but what killed Him? Execution by God?

EGW often reference to Jesus as the "Great Physician". Why?

How about the story of the man with the palsy that was let down through the roof? Jesus said: Luke 5:23-24 Whether is easier, to say, Your sins be forgiven you; or to say, Rise up and walk? 24 But that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, (he said to the sick of the palsy,) I say to you, Arise, and take up your couch, and go into your house.Jesus could say this because healing and forgiveness of sin, was the same thing. All sickness and death is caused by sin. Forgiving sin is healing of sin.

I do note james, that you did not answer my question in regard to the definition of forgiveness. Do you have one?

Yes, and HOW will God punish? The destruction of Jerusalem is an example:

Was that a Yes or a No?

If Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world, does that mean He did not have to die on the cross since He was already slain?

"Mere forgiveness of sin is not the sole result of the death of Jesus."

No, but it is the first purpose and requirment for our salvation. Without forgiveness there is no healing or restoration from sin.

"He made the infinite sacrifice not only that sin might be removed, but that human nature might be restored, rebeautified, reconstructed from its ruins, and made fit for the presence of God."

It is because Christ took our sins and died the penalty the law demands for sins that we can be declared righteous.

Now, BECAUSE Christ has defeated Satan, and has taken our sins from us (yes the legal forensic part is absolutely necessary) and has reclaimed us, and forgiven those who respond and come to Him confessing their sin, the work of transformation and healing from sin can take place.

We are to RECKON, or account ourselves as being without sin! Romans 6 -- having died to sin with Christ, and rising to new life (forgiven as if we had not sinnned) with Christ.

So account yourselves as being without sin. (forgiven)

A person who realizes He has been cleansed is now ready to be healed and transformed by walking with Christ and His Holy Spirit.

In the end -- yes, there will be a definite end.

All who have accepted Christ's cleansing blood will see the final destruction of their sins upon the head of satan the originator of sin.
All who rejected Christ's sacrifice and cleansing will bear their own sins.

God is a consuming fire where ever sin is to be found.
In His presence the redeemed can stand in the righteousness of Christ and rejoice in His presence.
Those who depended upon self righteousness and clung to their sins will be consumed along with satan and his angels. There will be a literal fire that cleanses the earth of all traces of sin.

asygo - did you read my reply and references? I don't think so.

According to the healing model, was Enoch healed? If he was, did Jesus have to die for him? If so, why?


Yes, Jesus had to die for Him!
Enoch understood the plan of salvation.
The promise was there. He believed.
As Enoch looked at his young son Methuselah, the meaning of the sacrifice God would make, took hold of him as never before.
He understood why his sins were forgiven, and the realization made him love God more and more, and he "walked with God".

Christ on the cross bore the sins of pre as well as post cross believers.

When one recognizes that during the creation of the world God embedded prophetically the message that He would come during the fourth "day" (representing a millennium), it makes perfect sense that He was slated to be slain from the foundation of the world. When God sees the future as if it were history, the use of past tense is not troublesome for even a future event. However, in John the Revelator's case, it was already a past event, and so from his vantage point the past tense was to be expected, for the prophecy had already been fulfilled.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

dedication - what is your definition of forgive?

Do note, there are two Greek words in the NT that are translated forgive, and they do not mean the same thing. 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The Greek word translated "forgive" in this verse is ἀφίημι, Aphiemi. And the "forgiveness" in this case does not happen in the offended (God), but in the offender - us, sinners. Confessing our sins to God does not change God in any way! The "forgiveness" God offers is something that happens in us. And it is not a legal transaction.

dedication - what is your definition of forgive?

Do note, there are two Greek words in the NT that are translated forgive, and they do not mean the same thing. 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The Greek word translated "forgive" in this verse is ἀφίημι, Aphiemi. And the "forgiveness" in this case does not happen in the offended (God), but in the offender - us, sinners. Confessing our sins to God does not change God in any way! The "forgiveness" God offers is something that happens in us. And it is not a legal transaction.

The "aphiemi" forgiveness is also for those whom God has reserved unto Himself, and is the word used for those "left" in the so-called "rapture" texts. We want to be "left" (forgiven) not "taken." That's probably leaning toward , but aphiemi is an interesting word just the same.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

PS--I can post HTML here, but am not able to edit others' posts in threads I don't moderate. Sorry. One of the other mods will have to fix the HTML...too bad HTML-entities cannot be always converted automatically. -- GC

Did Abraham understand this as a legal transaction? Galatians speaks of justification as forgiveness.

I did, but they don't answer my questions. If someone like me, who sees much truth in the theory, cannot get a simple and straight answer from you, a proponent who learned it directly from its most prominent teacher, it is no wonder that people are confused about it. Is it really so convoluted that two simple questions - Was Enoch healed? Did Jesus have to die on the cross? - cannot be answered with a simple Yes or No? If this is the Gospel, what hope have you of teaching it to your children?

Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Is justification a legal transaction? Or is it a trust(faith)/healing process?

Dear APL,

you may have been a student of Dr Bacchiocchi but he was my friend and I knew him very well. We corresponded up until my last vision of Jesus sweating blood in Gethsemane, just before he died, so don't give me your condescending attitude please. I Cried when my friend Barb told me he died. His last email to me must have taken him days to write, illustrating all of the positive elements to the Spirit of Prophecy that he knew that corresponded with my vision. Stopping short of saying my dreams and visions were inspired.

He did not agree with me about the 7 kings of Rev 17 until later before he died, when he seemed to make concessions, but he did agree with me on the Red Heifer.

By reading your response, I just cannot fathom how anyone in the Spirit of Christ would even attempt to take on our faith on such basic levels, as do men who camp out on websites like this thinking they have more truth than our own prophet.

There are several words that are translated 'forgive' or forgiven.

'nasa' means to carry the sin. Like the high priest carried the sins of Israel into the most Holy Place.

'calach' means to absolve or pardon without demanding justice.

'kaphar' means to cover over or propitiate.

The one used in conjunction with forgiveness of sins committed against God is 'aphieemi' which means 'to send away' to blot them out, which is direct reference to Atonement and the Scapegoat.

The next is 'apolyo' which means to 'let go of'.

And the last is 'charizomai' which means to freely bestow.

So which 'forgive' do you want to talk about?

The 10 commandment law demands the death of the sinner, Jesus had the authority to die in our place, and He did so we could be forgiven for our sins, which means, so the record of sin could be expunged. Mercy met justice in Christ.

It is not the same kind of forgiveness that we exercise against people who have sinned against us.

We do not have the authority to demand death for something done against us unless we died in the act.

The law does have the right, and will condemn anyone who has not claimed the faith of Jesus.

If someone sins against us, we are commanded as faithful servants to 'Calach' the sinner. This is on the personal level, showing our love for God in contrast to the wickedness of the world.

The law DEMANDS justice. The record is immovable, if there is any un-forgiven sins on our record, then death is mandatory. Non negotiable. Jesus came to show this to us by dying on the cross, so He could forgive us individually if we come to Him and claim His gift.

So to answer your question, true forgiveness is conditional.

"While the soldiers were doing their fearful work, Jesus prayed for His enemies, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” His mind passed from His own suffering to the sin of His persecutors, and the terrible retribution that would be theirs. No curses were called down upon the soldiers who were handling Him so roughly. No vengeance was invoked upon the priests and rulers, who were gloating over the accomplishment of their purpose. Christ pitied them in their ignorance and guilt. He breathed only a plea for their forgiveness,—“for they know not what they do.” {DA 744.2}
Had they known that they were putting to torture One who had come to save the sinful race from eternal ruin, they would have been seized with remorse and horror. But their ignorance did not remove their guilt; for it was their privilege to know and accept Jesus as their Saviour. Some of them would yet see their sin, and repent, and be converted. Some by their impenitence would make it an impossibility for the prayer of Christ to be answered for them. Yet, just the same, God’s purpose was reaching its fulfillment. Jesus was earning the right to become the advocate of men in the Father’s presence. {DA 744.3}

You need to be very careful how you fold this idea into our faith and claim it to from God. You seem to get further and further from the foundation of our faith every time we talk.

True, merely forgiving sinners cannot cause the radical transformation that occurs when people experience rebirth in God's appointed way. Knowing that Jesus loves them and is very willing to pardon and save them certainly serves to motivate them to confess and repent. However, law and justice demand death for sin.

Does confessing and repenting satisfy the demands of law and justice? Is confession and repentance the cause, source of salvation? Is being genuinely sorry sufficient? Or, does law and justice demand being genuinely sorry and never sinning again?

You wrote, "The death of Christ is not for mere forgiveness". Ellen White wrote, "Mere forgiveness of sin is not the sole result of the death of Jesus. He made the infinite sacrifice not only that sin might be removed". In other words, forgiveness and removal of sin is one of the reasons Jesus lived and died the perfect life and death. The question is - Why was it a reason? Why did He have to live and die?

1. “By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” (6BC 1095)

2. “In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” (CON 22)

3. “Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man’s stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon.” (1SM 340)

Read the next few paragraphs!!Is this describing a legal process? No. It is a trust/healing process.Was this a legal requirement? Read the context.Is the impassable barrier a "legal" barrier? I don't think so. It is a real barrier. God is a consuming fire. The sinful could not come into the presence of God and live. Was that because of a legal requirement? Or is there a real problem that must be solved? I see it as the latter!

Yes, the death of Christ was not "merely" for forgiveness of sin, there was a far greater reason.

True, merely forgiving sinners cannot cause the radical transformation that occurs when people experience rebirth in God's appointed way. Knowing that Jesus loves them and is very willing to pardon and save them certainly serves to motivate them to confess and repent. However, law and justice demand death for sin.

Does confessing and repenting satisfy the demands of law and justice? Is confession and repentance the cause, source of salvation? Is being genuinely sorry sufficient? Or, does law and justice demand being genuinely sorry and never sinning again?

You wrote, "The death of Christ is not for mere forgiveness". Ellen White wrote, "Mere forgiveness of sin is not the sole result of the death of Jesus. He made the infinite sacrifice not only that sin might be removed". In other words, forgiveness and removal of sin is one of the reasons Jesus lived and died the perfect life and death. The question is - Why was it a reason? Why did He have to live and die?

Repentance
Confession

APL, is it safe to conclude you believe Jesus did not die to satisfy the demands of law and justice; that confession, repentance, and sinless living is all that is needed to satisfy law and justice? If so, what is the source of our salvation - 1) Jesus' perfect life and death, or 2) confession, repentance, and sinless living?

What does it mean to satisfy the demands of the law? Is this an arbitrary requirement of the law? Once the law is broken, does it mean someone must die? Are all sinners subject to this death? How is it that we can be saved? ...


Is the "cleansing" a legal process or a healing process?

Bad words and works will prevent people from inheriting eternal life. Conversely, good words and works are required to inherit eternal life. They are not the sole source of salvation. The substitutional life and death of Jesus is required to atone for past sins confessed and pardoned. “Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed." “In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” "The transgression of God's law made the death of Christ essential to save man and yet maintain the dignity and honor of the law." "He bore the death penalty of man’s transgression. He became the sinner’s substitute and surety." "Let the punishment fall on Me. I will stand in man's place. He shall have another chance"

You asked, "Is the 'cleansing' a legal process or a healing process?" It is both.

"He died to make an atonement, to redeem, cleanse, restore, and exalt man to a place at his right hand."

Where is the legal part in this statement?

Let me ask this question: is God's Law proscriptive, prescriptive, or descriptive?

The problem:



Is this a solution:

APL, It is so obvious that you do not realize that we are in the middle of a battle against demons.

"Adam, in transgressing the law of Jehovah, had opened the door for Satan, who had planted his banner in the midst of the first family. He was made to feel, indeed, that the wages of sin was death. Satan designed to gain Eden by deceiving our first parents..." {Con 23.3}

The issue is not only restoration of man to heaven, but the destruction of the enemy of righteousness, who uses men to war against God.

If we are not connected to heaven, then Satan and his angels dwell in us. Satan tries to hurt God through us, and any connection to sin leaves the door open for Satan to survive through us. So in order to free the universe from the taint of the influence of demons, God first had to quarantine our fallen world, then come down to show us the way, and soon He will execute the traitors.

Sanctification closes the door that Satan uses through us to hurt God and us.

Atonement.

This sacrificial offering has both legality and love intermingled.

Was it proper to bring what God had not asked for to make atonement? Was Cain's offering accepted? He 'legally' needed to be connected with God through obedience in following God's word to be redeemed. But he failed to meet the legal requirements so he did not benefit from the offering.

I wonder what APL has said to justify this statement?

He even had the voice of God telling him how he could be accepted the next time he offered and what did he do? He killed his brother because he was accepted.

"Some may look upon this slaying of the (Red) heifer as a meaningless ceremony, but it was done by the command of God and bears a deep significance that has not lost its application to the present time. {4T 122.1}

Christians who put no thought in the Atonement will not ready for the latter rain!

The point is, the legality of the written word is for our benefit in present truth. Do not let go of the images God has established foundation-ally through the law and you cannot go wrong. The legal system was for our admonition and benefit more than common man made theories.

There is much fulfilled law to accomplish this. The way it was fulfilled in love gives us the nurturing part but even then it is symbolized by very specific images and you have touched on one dimension of it claiming it is all and all. (APL)

Atonement = at-one-ment. this is not a legal process. Do you want to live next to a legally pardoned pedophile, or next to a changed/born again child of God? They both have the same past history, but one has been transformed. 1 John 1:9, if we confess our sins, he will forgive our sins. And even more, cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Forgive - Aphiemi. This is what happened not in the offended person, God, but in the offender, us, the sinners. This forgive is the cleansing of unrighteousness. The removal of sin. That is what this word forgiveness means. It is not a legal transaction, it is a healing transaction.

Cain - is religion really a legal requirement? Was that Cain's problem? He did not follow the legal requirements? I would suggest you see what EGW says about "legal religion". Here is one: "A legal religion can never lead souls to Christ; for it is a loveless, Christless religion." There are many more...

Lastly, I would recommend the book "Ministry of Healing" chapter 41. Take the recommendations to heart. And do note, it is the "Ministry of Healing", not the "Ministry of jurisprudence".

A quote from Steps to Christ, chapter 5.

God does not want to remove a legal declaration against us. He wants to "HEAL" us, to restore us to His original creation, maybe even with upgrades. This required a "RENEWING OF OUR WHOLE NATURE". This is a healing process, not a legal process. The only way we can be saved, is if we are born again, recreated. Then, and only then is the law satisfied. The regeneration can only be done by Christ. It took His death on the cross to achieve this. This is what Isaiah 53:11 is saying. "by His knowledge, shall my righteous servant justify many". Read all of Isaiah 53. Read Isaiah 52. Matthew 8:17 quoting Isaiah 53 says, he carried our "sickness"! If you compare Isaiah 53:11 with Titus 3:5-7, what do we find? The Bible definition of Grace. We are justified by His Grace (Titus) = by His knowledge we are justified (Isaiah). It was by His death on the cross that he gained this knowledge. See Hebrews 2, particularly, Hebrews 2:11-18. Verse 18 says, Hebrews 2:18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. It was by His experience that He has the knowledge to justify us, to succor us that are tempted. Yes, Jesus had to die to satisfy the law. But it is not a legal issue, it is a real issue he solved.

Like I said before, YES there is the ultimate healing involved, but it is in fulfillment of the LAW!

Jesus sinned not, fulfilling perfection as a man so we know where the source of strength is, in fulfillment of the law, He overcame sin for us.

I am saying, you do not consider this.

Circular logic.

By the way, I love the book "Ministry of Healing", in fact I used to give them away at my smoothie shop here in Elk River.

I had a leather bound edition on the counter for all to read.

I especially like when she says this on page 88.6

"The Feast of Tabernacles had just ended. The priests and rabbis at Jerusalem had been defeated in their plottings against Jesus, and, as evening fell, “every man went unto his own house. Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives.” John 7:53; 8:1. {MH 86.1}
From the excitement and confusion of the city, from the eager crowds and the treacherous rabbis, Jesus turned away to the quiet of the olive groves, where He could be alone with God. But in the early morning He returned to the temple; and as the people gathered about Him, He sat down and taught them. {MH 86.2}
He was soon interrupted. A group of Pharisees and scribes approached Him, dragging with them a terror-stricken woman, whom with hard, eager voices they accused of having violated the seventh commandment. Pushing her into the presence of Jesus, they said, with a hypocritical display of respect, “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?” Verses 4, 5. {MH 87.1}
Their pretended reverence veiled a deep-laid plot for His ruin. Should Jesus acquit the woman, He might be charged with despising the law of Moses. Should He declare her worthy of death, He could be accused to the Romans as one who assumed authority belonging only to them. {MH 88.1}
Jesus looked upon the scene—the trembling victim in her shame, the hard-faced dignitaries, devoid of even human pity. His spirit of stainless purity shrank from the spectacle. Giving no sign that He had heard the question, He stooped and, fixing His eyes upon the ground, began to write in the dust. {MH 88.2}
Impatient at His delay and apparent indifference the accusers drew nearer, urging the matter upon His attention. But as their eyes, following those of Jesus, fell upon the pavement at His feet, their voices were silenced. There, traced before them, were the guilty secrets of their own lives. {MH 88.3}
Rising, and fixing His eyes upon the plotting elders, Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Verse 7. And, stooping down, He continued writing. {MH 88.4}
He had not set aside the Mosaic law nor infringed upon the authority of Rome. The accusers were defeated. Now, their robes of pretended holiness torn from them, they stood, guilty and condemned, in the presence of infinite purity. Trembling lest the hidden iniquity of their lives should be laid open to the multitude, with bowed heads and downcast eyes they stole away, leaving their victim with the pitying Saviour. {MH 88.5}
Jesus arose and, looking upon the woman, said, “Where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” Verses 10, 11. {MH 88.6}
The woman had stood before Jesus, cowering with fear. His words, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone,” had come to her as a death sentence. She dared not lift her eyes to the Saviour’s face, but silently awaited her doom. In astonishment she saw her accusers depart speechless and confounded; then those words of hope fell upon her ear, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” Her heart was melted, and, casting herself at the feet of Jesus, she sobbed out her grateful love and with bitter tears confessed her sins. {MH 89.1}
This was to her the beginning of a new life, a life of purity and peace, devoted to God. In the uplifting of this fallen soul, Jesus performed a greater miracle than in healing the most grievous physical disease; He cured the spiritual malady which is unto death everlasting. This penitent woman became one of His most steadfast followers. With self-sacrificing love and devotion she showed her gratitude for His forgiving mercy. For this erring woman the world had only contempt and scorn, but the Sinless One pitied her weakness and reached to her a helping hand. While the hypocritical Pharisees denounced, Jesus bade her, “Go, and sin no more.” {MH 89.2}
Jesus knows the circumstances of every soul. The greater the sinner’s guilt, the more he needs the Saviour. His heart of divine love and sympathy is drawn out most of all for the one who is the most hopelessly entangled in the snares of the enemy. With His own blood He has signed the emancipation papers of the race. {MH 89}

Jesus fulfilled the law so He could have this authority as a man. The second Adam. In fulfillment of the LAW in mercy to heal us from the sin problem.

That is not how I read the story in my Bible.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Is the LAW, Proscriptive, Prescriptive, or Descriptive?

Is the law of gravity one of God's laws?
Is the law of gravity, proscriptive, prescriptive, or descriptive?
Can the law of gravity kill?
If gravity kills, is it a legally imposed penalty?

A highway speed limit of 55 miles/hour - is this proscriptive, prescriptive or descriptive?
Is there a natural consequence if you violate the highway speed limit?
If you violate the speed limit, is the penalty intrinsic or imposed?

The law of God, is it proscriptive, prescriptive, or descriptive?
If you violate God's law, is the penalty intrinsic or imposed?
Romans 6:23 - The wages of sin is death. Intrinsic or imposed?
How is justice executed?

EGW:" It is Satan's constant effort to misrepresent the character of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great controversy.{GC-569}

The law is a transcript of God's character. It defines righteousness. It prohibits sinning. It condemns sinning and sinners. It demands death. It points sinners to Jesus as their only hope of pardon and salvation.

"The sinner gets into trouble with the Father through transgression of his law. Christ, the sinner's Advocate, pleads in his behalf. The law cannot release the sinner from the consequence of his transgression, but Christ himself pays the penalty the sinner has incurred by his disobedience. {ST, July 18, 1878 par. 7} "Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the Son of God. {1SM 230.1}

The substitutional life and death of Jesus is required to atone for past sins confessed and pardoned. “Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed." “In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” "The transgression of God's law made the death of Christ essential to save man and yet maintain the dignity and honor of the law." "He bore the death penalty of man’s transgression. He became the sinner’s substitute and surety." "Let the punishment fall on Me. I will stand in man's place. He shall have another chance"

"Adam listened to the words of the tempter, and yielding to his insinuations, fell into sin. Why was not the death penalty at once enforced in his case?--Because a ransom was found. God's only begotten Son volunteered to take the sin of man upon himself, and to make an atonement for the fallen race. There could have been no pardon for sin had this atonement not been made. Had God pardoned Adam's sin without an atonement, sin would have been immortalized, and would have been perpetuated with a boldness that would have been without restraint. {RH, April 23, 1901 par. 9}

Is the atonement LEGAL? NO. The law can not be changed. The law can NOT release the sinner from the consequences of his transgression. There is not a legal solution to the problem. A real solution must be found. The only solution is that man must be born again. The stain of sin must be removed. This is healing, not legal. A legal declaration makes no change in man. A restoration of the human character by the divine is the only solution. Just God is just and justifier. Justification is setting right. This is not a legal solution, it is a real solution.

Those two posts have been a great personal blessing for me. Steps to Christ and Ministry of Healing that we do well in reading often in our daily experience.

While attending the SDA Seminary, H M S Richards Sr. visited us for a week with daily lectures. It was fascinating listening to him telling us about his meeting with Sister White. He also told us he would not let a year pass by without having re-read Steps to Christ. The New Testament monthly and the Old Testament annually. This is what gave him Spiritual Power in his preaching.

Thank you for sharing these thoughts with us.

I have also received a blessing by reading your book, Mike.

You obviously think you have something important connected to what you are saying here APL, so why don't you just say what is on your mind so we can all see how important what you have to say is.

The law is an expression of the character of God.

"...fathers and mothers were to instruct their children that the law of God is an expression of His character, and that as they received the principles of the law into the heart, the image of God was traced on mind and soul." {CG 32.3}

are you making your own theology?

Reading these discussions I get reminded of an EGW passage. In which way do you think this applies here?

Excellent quote Pastor.

I have actually looked for that quote before, and now I can make a reference.

But On this topic with APL; He keeps asking me open ended questions and does not give any reason why, asking me directly and incessantly "what is the meaning of forgiveness"? Then making the audacious statement "Atonement is not legal" etc.

If Atonement is not legal then was God mistaken in making it law?

APL you need to make a statement instead of asking me open ended questions, and talking in circles if you want to challenge the position I offered.

The reason God gave the law is so we can identify the Spirit of Truth in how scripture is presented, the evidence lying in the life of Christ. There is no two ways to interpret the truth on the same matter. Mathematically there can only be one truth.

There are subjects that some can grasp and others cannot, but that does not mean the same text has two different interpretations.

James 1:25(ESV)

"But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

"The same enmity existed in the heart of Saul that stirred the heart of Cain against his brother Abel, because Abel’s works were righteous, and God honored him, and his own works were evil, and the Lord could not bless him. Envy is the offspring of pride, and if it is entertained in the heart, it will lead to hatred, and eventually to revenge and murder. Satan displayed his own character in exciting the fury of Saul against him who had never done him harm.—Patriarchs and Prophets, 651. {ChL 19.2}

"When Cain saw that his offering was rejected, he was angry with the Lord and with Abel; he was angry that God did not accept man’s substitute in place of the sacrifice divinely ordained, and angry with his brother for choosing to obey God instead of joining in rebellion against Him. Notwithstanding Cain’s disregard of the divine command, God did not leave him to himself; but He condescended to reason with the man who had shown himself so unreasonable. And the Lord said unto Cain, “Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?” Through an angel messenger the divine warning was conveyed: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” The choice lay with Cain himself. If he would trust to the merits of the promised Saviour, and would obey God’s requirements, he would enjoy His favor. But should he persist in unbelief and transgression, he would have no ground for complaint because he was rejected by the Lord. {PP 73.3}
But instead of acknowledging his sin, Cain continued to complain of the injustice of God and to cherish jealousy and hatred of Abel. He angrily reproached his brother, and attempted to draw him into controversy concerning God’s dealings with them. In meekness, yet fearlessly and firmly, Abel defended the justice and goodness of God. He pointed out Cain’s error, and tried to convince him that the wrong was in himself. He pointed to the compassion of God in sparing the life of their parents when He might have punished them with instant death, and urged that God loved them, or He would not have given His Son, innocent and holy, to suffer the penalty which they had incurred. All this caused Cain’s anger to burn the hotter. Reason and conscience told him that Abel was in the right; but he was enraged that one who had been wont to heed his counsel should now presume to disagree with him, and that he could gain no sympathy in his rebellion. In the fury of his passion he slew his brother. {PP 74.1}

Yes, true religion is essential!

Now does your bible say that GC?

Romans 8:19-22 For the earnest expectation of the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who has subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwells righteousness.

What legal problem causes all creation to groan? Why do dogs get cancer? Are they also in legal trouble? I don't think so. So what happened to them?

I am happy it was a blessing. Thank you, Jesus!

The law demands death for sin. God cannot disregard the requirements of law and justice. Jesus paid our sin debt of death. His life and death satisfies law and justice. What makes this part of salvation legal is all the legalese - 1) law, 2) justice, 3) crime, 4) evidence, 5) eye witnesses, 6) charges, 7) accusations, 8)confession, 9) conviction, 10) guilt, 11) condemnation, 12) judgment, 13) sentencing, 14) mediation, 15) substitution, 16) death, 17) grace, 18) mercy, 19) pardon, 20) restoration. It's difficult to conclude this part of salvation is not a legal matter.

Did Enoch need Christ's death on the cross in order to be regenerated?

Is God's Law - Proscriptive, Prescriptive, or Descriptive?

Take #1 - LAW. The laws of Nature are God's Laws, are they not? Is Gravity legal? Can you violate gravity? IF you fall off a high cliff, is the punishment that you sure will sustain, intrinsic or imposed?

Who created God's Law? If the Law demands the death of the sinner, and it does, is the penalty intrinsic or imposed? Does God have to step in when the law is broken, and execute judgment?

I'm not sure what you are getting at with this particular question, but it brings up a side question that is just as relevant to this thread, and that is, "Did Enoch need Christ's death on the cross in order to be saved?"

The answer to that is "Yes." Here is a quote from the Desire of Ages that says Jesus' death was necessary for every human being, which would certainly have included Enoch, Moses, and Elijah given the context of this quote.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes GC. Good quote. Also in Prophets and Kings we read:Enoch knew the plan of salvation. He looked forward to the coming Messiah and beyond to the second coming.

Praise God Mike, You have the Holy Spirit teaching you.

He who does not yield to the claims of the law of God, sets himself above God, breaks away from God’s rule of right, and becomes disloyal, as did the great deceiver in the beginning. Would that some who claim to be commandment keepers could see how their cases stand in the register above. Oh, that all who are falling short of the principles of righteousness might realize that they do not meet the broad, far-reaching claims of the law of God upon them! Repentance for sin is the first step in conversion. Repentance is an intense hatred of sin in all its forms. Phariseeism permits of self-complacency, and those who are self-righteous, appear to have a form of piety, but at heart they are corrupt. They may talk of their hope of heaven, when, in fact, they have not taken the first step toward heaven. {ST August 13, 1894, par. 5}
We are not under a system of mere requirements, mere justice, and unsympathizing rigor. The penalty of transgressing the law has fallen upon our Substitute and Surety, and for a time has been suspended, so that the guilty do not feel its weight; but the object of this suspension is not to teach us that its claims are over, its exactions set aside, but to attract us to holiness, to obedience. Nothing is changed except the manner of bringing men to obey the law. Obey its claims we must. The first step toward obedience is repentance. We are to see the excellence of its requirements by beholding the wrong of disobedience. {ST August 13, 1894, par. 6}

In this lifetime the penalty for transgressing the Law of God (10Cs) is suspended. Probation is blood bought. The penalty for sinning is instant, immediate second death visited upon the sinner - not a long, lingering first death. The cause and effect consequences we suffer in this lifetime is not the penalty for sinning. She wrote, "death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor" was "transferred" to the "Son of God." Jesus paid our sin debt of death; thus, He earned the legal right to ransom, redeem, pardon, restore, and save penitent sinners. She wrote:


Why did Jesus have to earn the right to save sinners and to destroy sinners? Law and justice demands it!

I agree with your short and simple answer.

I have brought it up several times because it is a data point that will serve as an anchor in the tension between penal vs healing vs moral influence. If one does not have a firm position on this question, he will be tossed about by many winds of doctrine.

If the answer is No, then we must conclude that Christ's death was unnecessary, the death of the Testator superfluous. It would go against a mountain of inspired evidence.

If the answer is Yes, as you and I believe, then we must conclude that moral reformation, as Enoch experienced, is not sufficient. Aside from healing us, God needed to accomplish something else. This would destroy both the moral influence and the healing-only models.

Note that APL has said many things, and is proficient at expressing his views. But he cannot give a simple answer to this simple question. Despite all the things he said, what he hasn't said is the most enlightening regarding his and Maxwell's teachings. There is much precious truth in it, but there is a fundamental, fatal flaw in the theory. I was hoping to help APL see it, but it is becoming clear that he sees it, but refuses to accept it.

Sin changed man's NATURE, making it impossible to obey the law. Was man not legally able to keep the law? Or was there something else going on? Did Christ achieve a legal pardon for man that somehow now man able to keep the law which by his nature he no long could? What legal act, can change man's nature? There is not. Man's nature needed healing, restoration, salvation. A legal pronunciation can do this. If you go to a doctor with a life threatening disease, do you want to be legally forgiven, or healed? 1 John 1:9 is talking about the latter.

No one has commented on my connection of Isaiah 53 and Titus 3 for a Biblical definition of Grace. This Biblical definition states, that by the knowledge that Christ gained in His experience, He is able to justify (set right) many. It is not a legal knowledge, though He has the legal right as creator of all, but knowledge of how to solve the sin problem which is in our very nature.Was this sin that EGW talking about a legal violation of the law?

MM, you also equated God's Law with the 10C. Where in the Bible does it limit the transgression of the law to the 10C?

Are the 10C, proscriptive, prescriptive, or descriptive?

The "healing-only" logic:
Man's moral nature needs to be healed.
A legal solution does not heal man's moral nature.
Therefore, man does not need a legal solution.

Using the same logic:
Man's moral nature needs to be healed.
Water does not heal man's moral nature.
Therefore, man does not need water.

Both syllogisms are equally sound.

If this was true, then He could not have justified anyone in the Old Testament, including Enoch, Moses, and Elijah. That would be problematic.

Only if you think God is bound by time.

You have added a limitation to what I've said, "moral nature". Did I say "moral nature"? Nope. You are injecting a qualifier there that I did not put in there. Why? Is sin just a moral problem? Or is sin much greater? I don't want to put words into your mouth, but is it your opinion that since all nature is affected by sin, then dogs get cancer because of their "moral nature"?

The 10Cs is all encompassing. We cannot commit a sin that does not violate the 10Cs.

APL, in this lifetime the penalty for transgressing the Law of God (10Cs) is suspended. The penalty for sinning is instant, immediate second death visited upon the sinner - not a long, lingering first death. The cause and effect consequences we and this planet suffer in this lifetime is not the penalty for sinning.

Ellen White wrote, "death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor" was "transferred" to the "Son of God." Jesus paid our sin debt of death; thus, He earned the legal right to ransom, redeem, pardon, restore, and save penitent sinners. She wrote:


Why did Jesus have to earn the right to save sinners and to destroy sinners? Law and justice demands it! Again, the cause and consequence effect of sinning we and this planet suffer now is not the actual penalty for sin. There is no natural relation between telling a white lie and burning to death in the lake of fire (second death). The sins of sinners will not cause natural law to rain down fire and consume them in a lake of fire. The laws of nature are not "self acting". She wrote:


Nothing in nature is self acting. Everything obeys God. He uses the forces of nature to accomplish His purposes. In the end, He will employ them to punish and destroy sinners according to their words and works. Nature is incapable of doing it by herself. She is merely the means.

The penalty for transgressing the Law of God is suspended until the second resurrection except for those who repent and receive the cleansing in this life.

True repentance is a hatred of every kind of sin, but that only comes through seeing what our individual sins caused the Son of God. Through empathy we vicariously feel the pain we caused our Lord and this causes us to hate sin.

If we repent, there is still a fire to go through. It is not an easy thing to drink the cup, baptized in the blood of Gethsemane.

"But the Saviour answered, “Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” They recalled His mysterious words pointing to trial and suffering, yet answered confidently, “We are able.” They would count it highest honor to prove their loyalty by sharing all that was to befall their Lord. {AA 542.1}
“Ye shall drink indeed of My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with,” Christ declared—before Him a cross instead of a throne, two malefactors His companions at His right hand and at His left. James and John were to be sharers with their Master in suffering—the one, destined to swift-coming death by the sword; the other, longest of all the disciples to follow his Master in labor and reproach and persecution. “But to sit on My right hand, and on My left,” He continued, “is not Mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of My Father.” Matthew 20:21-23. {AA 542.2}

The ones who receive the blessing of being on the right and left hand of Jesus in His kingdom are the 144,000, who like Christ stand before God without an intercessor after probation closes and the plagues are falling. They are not bearing sins like Jesus, they are bearing His reproach after meeting with Him at the altar outside the camp. They are the ones from our faith who have truly received the message for the end and are prepared for the later rain, they are baptized in the Holy Spirit and are strengthened to endure to the end.

As Christ has shown, the 10C are more that just outward behavior. And Nicodemus and Paul have described. The inner man must be changed. You don't want to bite on the question of what the 10C, proscriptive, prescriptive or descriptive. I will give my answer. They are descriptive. They describe how a righteous person will behave. A righteous person will not lie, will not steal, will not covet, will not murder. Being descriptive, the consequences for breaking these laws are intrinsic. No outward force is required to punish the law breaker. Romans 1 describes this.

The ultimate penalty of transgression is temporarily suspended. But there is still penalty of transgression and is experienced today. All death (1st) and sickness is the ultimate result of transgression. The sins of the father are visited until the children, to the 3rd and 4th generation. Is this a legal visitation? Or as a natural consequence of transgression? It is a natural consequence. It is transferred by heritage and social cultivation.

Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture. No mention of His dying for canine cancer. Cancer, canine or otherwise, is not a sin.

Christ's death, the atonement, the sin problem, and the related topics that we have been discussing are not physical issues. We might have physical problems, but God's plan of salvation was not implemented in order to fix my bad back. The problem is moral. Our physical ailments are a Red Herring at best. Our depravity is the crux of the matter.

But if it will make the logic easier to digest, I'll comply with your wishes. Just know that even if all the terms are replaced with variables, the logic is just as fallacious. Your defense only clouds the issue for those who cannot see the pure logic.

The "healing-only" logic:
Man's nature needs to be healed.
A legal solution does not heal man's nature.
Therefore, man does not need a legal solution.

Using the same logic:
Man's nature needs to be healed.
Water does not heal man's nature.
Therefore, man does not need water.

Pure logic:
Man needs X.
Y is not X.
Therefore, man does not need Y.

We are bound by time, which makes the plan of redemption temporally constrained. To invoke temporal independence would result in an argument like: Jesus needed to die on the cross to learn X so that He could justify sinners, which He already knew before the cross and used to justify Enoch.

You would also run into issues of sovereignty vs. free will. How could those guilty of His crucifixion avoid committing the sin if it had happened already in Enoch's time?

Did Enoch need to cross for salvation?
Enoch is saved the same way we are, and needed the same sacrifice we needed.

Good. We agree on that.

Was Enoch healed, nearly 4,000 years before Jesus died on the cross?

What is natural about the lake of fire? Is nature self acting?

APL will not hear.

Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.
Exodus 24:17 And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.
Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Psalms 15:1 Lord, who shall abide in your tabernacle? who shall dwell in your holy hill?
Psalms 24:3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
Isaiah 33:14-15 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness has surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? 15 He that walks righteously, and speaks uprightly; he that despises the gain of oppressions, that shakes his hands from holding of bribes, that stops his ears from hearing of blood, and shuts his eyes from seeing evil;

James, did you get a chance to read "The Ministry of Healing" chapter 41 yet? If not, do read the whole chapter, but be not like pharaoh who hardened his heart. Your enthusiasm and knowledge could be put to good use. Consider: 1 Peter 2:20; Matthew 5:23, 24; Proverbs 15:1; Romans 12:21; Psalm 37:5, 6; Luke 12:2; Psalm 66:12

Love the quotes. Thank you. But I'm not sure how you are using them to answer my questions. Does sinning cause fire to rain down and consume sinners in a lake of fire? Are the forces of nature self acting? Or, does God employ them to accomplishes His purposes? Ellen White wrote:


The forces of nature are tools which God employs to bless, and weapons He employs to curse and destroy. Nature is clearly not self acting. It obeys God.

Lets not forget what the subject is please. I entered this thread to comment on what Penal substitution is and how it is essential to how God saves us, and you put your sites on showing me how wrong I am, but you have not even begun to realize that what you have been saying is only one piece of the puzzle and you're not seeing the big picture APL. Now you're talking about the forces of nature?

Jesus died specifically in the way we would have if we had not received Him, He died the second death for us so we don't have to. This is by definition Penal substitution though I had never been told to call it that before.

This IS the plan of salvation, and all the rest of it are small details in the big picture. You obviously have the intent of showing me I'm wrong on this, but I have been taught these things from a greater influence than you could ever pull off believe me.

So in answer to your over repeated question, yes I do know what forgiveness is, do you?

Forgiveness is not dependent upon our lives first being cleaned up.
Forgiveness and sanctification are not the same thing.

Christ took our sins upon Himself and suffered the penalty, that we might be declared as IF WE HAD NEVER SINNED.

It is only in understanding this that we can then be CLEANSED, CHANGED, not because we do it to be forgiven (trying to merit forgiveness), but because Christ has forgiven us as we come to Him with a contrite heart (unmerited grace) and gives us a clean slate.

Forgiveness is a gift, totally unmerited, unearned.

Hmmm

Is fire natural? Fire is ignited as the natural consequences of striking a match, collecting the rays of the sun, etc.

Have you read the Ministry of Healing? Is this taught there?

Context is everything, eh! Yes, fire is natural. But the question is - Does sinning cause fire to rain down and burn sinners in a lake of fire? For example, does telling a lie cause fire to rain down in the same way touching a hot stove burns your finger? Is there a cause and effect relationship between sinning and fire raining down? Or, will Jesus employ the forces of nature to punish and destroy sinners in the lake of fire?

Please consider this:

Deuteronomy 8:14-15 Then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage; 15 Who led you through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought you forth water out of the rock of flint;

Numbers 21:5-6 And the people spoke against God, and against Moses, Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loathes this light bread. 6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

You can interpret this several ways. The Bible says, "God sent the serpents". What is the reality? First, they were there all the time, the miracle is not God sending them, but that they did not bite the people all the time! By the peoples ingratitude, their refusal to trust God, God had to remove his protection. So it is not that God sent the serpents, but he removed His protection.Three things Satan is doing:
1) misrepresenting the character of God
2) the nature of sin
3) and the real issues at stake in the Great Controversy.

Do we misrepresent God when we charge Him with executing the sentence against sin? Make Him the exacting creditor and severe. What is the nature of sin? Several ways to look at this issue too, such as, what is the wages of sin, execution or natural consequences? Intrinsic punishment, or imposed? Another is what really is sin, is it just an abnormal thought pattern or is sin REAL, and physical? Sin causes all creation to groan together. Sin affects every living organism. And the biggy, what are the real issues in the controversy???? (See GC chapter 29) If there a law, then do we have freedom?

The serpents are a type. God is holding back the winds of strife. God has prevented the natural consequences of sin to be manifest. (See PP, chapter 1). By rejecting God, the Children of Israel put God in a situation where he could no longer protect them, He had to withdraw his protection. And what was the result? Death and destruction. The Bible says that God brought this on the people. God does take responsibility. But we can see the true light of what was happening.

In the end, when the judgement is over, the universe will revert back to its normal state. All will see God, and the wicked will be destroyed, for God is a consuming fire to the wicked. If you want to see this as an imposed penalty, and execution, so be it. I don't. I see this as a natural consequence. I see sin as something real. From the Bible (Romans 5:12-19) sin is inherited. EGW is clear, that sin is inherited and cultivated. (I have 65+ pages of quoted from her to back this up) If sin is inherited, then it has to be in the DNA. Just look at cancer, this is the DNA gone bad. I have hundreds of examples... DNA today is fragile, in the presence of high energy sources, heat, E&M fields, ionizing radiation, it disintegrates. And where and how can be explained, and it is in the added DNA. Yeah, our genomes is full of added, non-original DNA. I can quote you hundreds of scientific papers, yeah they are by evolutionists, but evolutionists that had no clue why all the added DNA is there. They even call it selfish DNA, because its will destroy the host in order to reproduce itself.

In the beginning of sin on earth, God said, Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
And the 10C - - what about the Sabbath? I believe it is encoded in our DNA, and in the DNA of all living things. I don't have enough science yet to prove this, I have to take the Sabbath by faith. Google, circaseptan. Many articles hedge on this, but the evidence now is that all living organisms have a 7-day cycle. ALL. And it is encoded in the DNA. In fact, it is probably THE commandment that nails God as the creator. Nothing arbitrary about the Sabbath.

Is the death of Christ only moral influence? Hardly.
Is the death of Christ penal substitution? Christ did come and took on our diseases (Matt 8:17; Isaiah 53:3-4) do that he may know how to succor us, and "by His knowledge", His Grace, (Isaiah 53:11; Titus 3:5-7) he will justify (set right) many. Yes, He took the punishment that all sinners will experience. But is the punishment execution by God? Hardly. It is the intrinsic effect of sin. Something that the universe would not have understood in the beginning of sin, thus God allowed sin for a time.

No lest people want to accuse me of claiming we are to obtain "holy flesh", let me quote EGW:
Sin is real. It is physical. It will kill you. The wages of sin is death, not execution by God. Christ was made to be sin! The following verses then depict the REAL situation. Christ literally bore our our sins, in His own body. No legal transfer. It was not a LEGAL solution. It was a real, literal, physical solution. He solved the sin problem in His own body. And it killed Him. Not execution on the cross, that is now what killed Him.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live to righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.

Hebrews 1:1-3 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 Has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Hebrews 2:14-18 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For truly he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

There are two concepts in the Greek that are taught for the English word translated Forgive. I agree that God does not hold anything against us. He is forgiveness personified. But this is not the concept as used in 1 John 1:9. I would suggest the audio recordings of Adventist evangelist (teller of good news) Herb Montgomery, found here:
http://renewedheartministries.com/AudioPresentationList.aspx

I would listen to 1) Charizomai, and 2) Intrinsic or Imposed.

Jsot - you claim that you have great influence with our ideas. If you express them with the same tone of voice like you write here on these forums, I'm sure you are having a great influence. How is the reading of Chapter 41 going?

Yes, the glory of God is a consuming fire. The fact sinful flesh melts in the presence of God is natural cause and effect. "Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth." And fire rained down from heaven is also a consuming fire. "Fire came down from God out of heaven . . . whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." However, God, not sin, will rain down fire to punish and destroy sinners. Hellfire and brimstone is not self acting - it obeys the will of God.

But the wages of sin is death. Does that distinguish between telling a lie or committing adultery? All have sinned.

Yes, the wages of sin is second death. All have sinned. Therefore, all deserve to die the second death. But the second death is not the result of cause and effect natural law. Sinning will not cause fire to rain down.

To this, I do have to disagree. The second death is intrinsic to sin. It is, cause and effect. If it is not, then yes, we have a legal religion. The only reason we die, is because God is mad at us for breaking His rules, and then will kill those who do. Love me, or I will kill you. We should be afraid of a God like that. One who will exercise force to get His way. But is this really who God is?The fire that comes down from God, is the glory of His presence. And it will destroy sin. It is not moral influence, it is not penal substitution, it is trust/healing.

Yes perfect.



I'm not following this Brother. The fire that comes down from heaven is for the cleansing of the earth, to rid her of the plague of sin, and it is in direct result of the sins committed here.

Since the presence of the Father is a consuming fire and we are cut off from God by sin, then for Him to reclaim earth will naturally result in the fires of hell, but He only reveals Himself at the moment needed for the effect.

Here is something to think about.

The fire that burned the sacrifices was symbolic of the cleansing of the earth correct?

Jesus died the second death in Gethsemane and this is symbolized by the Red Heifer being burned while it's blood was running and flung in the direction of the temple.

Jesus endured hell as a direct result of receiving our sins upon His head.

I have, and I don't think so. But I'm not as familiar with that book as others. However, it is taught in Romans 8:7, among other places.

asygo - The mind is dependant on the body, for nurishment and health. Yes, your bad back can be affected by your spiritual health. Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil. All sickness is the result of the work of the adversary. Read the first paragraph of the book, The Ministry of Healing!The Plan of Redemption was precisely designed to fix your bad back. And all of our maladies.

Here are some more quotes on the relationship of the body and the mind.

It is not moral influence. It is not penal substitution. It is trust/healing.

You keep arguing as if I disagree with what you quote. I have never disagreed with anything Mrs White EVER said, even in the beginning when she was wrong she was corrected in the perfect will of the Father. God led her to it and through it, and in her writings are found the truth in verity.

But why do you quote what she says to build a new foundation?

Show me the words 'Penal substitution' in the word of God.

Show me the words 'Moral influence'.

We should be focused on the word of God.

My bible says; Psalm 51:7

"Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow."

Do you know how this is done? I was shown how this is done through the Spirit of Prophecy which MUST be balanced if you want to receive the full picture.

Agreeing with everything you quoted, (not the way you intended)
it must strike the perfect balance with this statement also.

"The body of the heifer was burned to ashes, which signified a whole and ample sacrifice. The ashes were then gathered up by a person uncontaminated by contact with the dead and placed in a vessel containing water from a running stream. This clean and pure person then took a cedar stick with scarlet cloth and a bunch of hyssop, and sprinkled the contents of the vessel upon the tent and the people assembled. This ceremony was repeated several times in order to be thorough and was done as a purification from sin. {4T 121.3}
Thus Christ, in His own spotless righteousness, after shedding His precious blood, enters into the holy place to cleanse the sanctuary. And there the crimson current is brought into the service of reconciling God to man. Some may look upon this slaying of the heifer as a meaningless ceremony, but it was done by the command of God and bears a deep significance that has not lost its application to the present time. {4T 122.1}
The priest used cedar and hyssop, dipping them into the cleansing water and sprinkling the unclean. This symbolized the blood of Christ spilled to cleanse us from moral impurities. The repeated sprinklings illustrate the thoroughness of the work that must be accomplished for the repenting sinner. All that he has must be consecrated. Not only should his own soul be washed clean and pure, but he should strive to have his family, his domestic arrangements, his property, and his entire belongings consecrated to God. {4T 122.2}
"After the tent had been sprinkled with hyssop, over the door of those cleansed was written: I am not my own; Lord, I am Thine. Thus should it be with those who profess to be cleansed by the blood of Christ. God is no less exacting now than He was in olden times. The psalmist, in his prayer, refers to this symbolic ceremony when he says: “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.” “Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation; and uphold me with Thy free spirit.” {4T 122.3}
The blood of Christ is efficacious, but it needs to be applied continually. God not only wants His servants to use the means He has entrusted to them for His glory, but He desires them to make a consecration of themselves to His cause. If you, my brethren, have become selfish and are withholding from the Lord that which you should cheerfully give to His service, then you need the blood of sprinkling thoroughly applied, consecrating you and all your possessions to God. {4T 122.4}

Do you know how to receive this?

I am here to teach people about this issue, sent by God. If you want to receive it, it is all yours. If you reject it, there is no one else to blame but yourself when it is revealed how you abused God's messenger.

Peace.

WHO are you talking to? Who is "you" in you comment?

Yes, the glory of God is a consuming fire. The fact sinful flesh melts in the presence of God is natural cause and effect. "Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth." And fire rained down from heaven is also a consuming fire. "Fire came down from God out of heaven . . . whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." However, God, not sin, will rain down fire to punish and destroy sinners. Hellfire and brimstone is not self acting - it obeys the will of God.

Executing justice is not exercising force. Nor is it a form of "Love me or I'll kill you". Ellen White wrote:


The dreadful scene described above will not be caused by the radiant brightness of God's glory. The elements that will cause the lake of fire wherein sinners will suffer and perish will be but obeying God. He will employ them to punish and destroy sinners according to their words and works. These elements are not "self acting," that is, they will not punish and destroy sinners in response to their sinfulness. God - not sinning, not nature - will wield the arsenals of nature to execute justice. Ellen White wrote:


Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary.

As they reasoned in Noah's day they reason today, when the warning message is proclaimed to fear God and keep His commandments. The wrath of God is soon to fall on all the sinful and disobedient, and they will perish in the general conflagration. Professed servants of Christ who are unfaithful, who do not reverence God and with fear prepare for the terrible future event, will lull themselves to carnal security with their fallacious reasoning, as they did in Noah's day. "God is too good and too merciful [they reason] to save just a few who keep the Sabbath and believe the message of warning. The great men and the good men, the philosophers and men of wisdom would see the Sabbath and the shortness of time, if it were true." They do not believe a merciful God who made men will consume them with fire because they do not believe the warnings given. This, they reason, is not in accordance with God. . . . {12MR 207.1}

God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner. Men reason from their own low standard of right and justice. "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself" (Psalm 50:21). They measure God by themselves. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do. {12MR 207.2}

God's goodness and long forbearance, His patience and mercy exercised to His subjects, will not hinder Him from punishing the sinner who refused to be obedient to His requirements. It is not for a man--a criminal against God's holy law, pardoned only through the great sacrifice He made in giving His Son to die for the guilty because His law was changeless--to dictate to God. After all this effort on the part of God to preserve the sacred and exalted character of His law, if men, through the sophistry of the devil, turn the mercy and condescension of God into a curse, they must suffer the penalty. Because Christ died they consider they have liberty to transgress God's holy law that condemns the transgressor, and would complain of its strictness and its penalty as severe and unlike God. They are uttering the words Satan utters to millions, to quiet their conscience in rebellion against God. {12MR 208.1}

In no kingdom or government is it left to the lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who have broken the law. All we have, all the bounties of His grace which we possess, we owe to God. The aggravating character of sin against such a God cannot be estimated any more than the heavens can be measured with a span. God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the Lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force. {12MR 208.2}

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice.--Ms 5, 1876, pp. 1-3.

White Estate Washington, D. C. January 6, 1983 {12MR 208.3}

MM - you idea of punishment and mine are different. There is not doubt, the wicked will die. It will be awful. You see God as the executioner. I see the results as intrinsic. The "according to their deeds" is as cause and effect. All we need to do is look at the cross of Calvary. Did Jesus die the death of a sinner? Did God execute Jesus? The destruction of Jerusalem is an example, "Christ saw in Jerusalem a symbol of the world hardened in unbelief and rebellion, and hastening on to meet the retributive judgments of God.{GC 22.1} How did God destroy Jerusalem?

Exodus 34:6-7 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the children's children, to the third and to the fourth generation.

Yes, the wicked will be destroyed. The wages of sin is death. God has stayed the process. The time will come when He will no longer do so. Jesus is the clear example of God's roll in the process. That is where we should look.

[quote=APL I see the results as intrinsic. The "according to their deeds" is as cause and effect. All we need to do is look at the cross of Calvary. Did Jesus die the death of a sinner? Did God execute Jesus? The destruction of Jerusalem is an example, "Christ saw in Jerusalem a symbol of the world hardened in unbelief and rebellion, and hastening on to meet the retributive judgments of God.{GC 22.1} How did God destroy Jerusalem?

---

Yes, the wicked will be destroyed. The wages of sin is death. God has stayed the process. The time will come when He will no longer do so. Jesus is the clear example of God's roll in the process. That is where we should look. [/quote]

Ellen White has much to say about cause and effect. That is a very helpful study.

YOU. Or don't you agree about that either APL? Couldn't you tell who I was addressing by the quotes from Mrs White that directly contradicted your statements? Aren't you even concentrating on this conversation? Or are you just saying things to be contentious?

Yes, the plan of redemption encompasses physical ailments, but that is a far cry from saying that Jesus died to heal your dog's cancer.

Are you saying that if Jesus did not come and die on the cross, He would not have been able to heal a broken leg? Or a palsied hand? Or a broken neck?

The sinner could not come in his own person, with his guilt upon him, and with no greater merit than he possessed in himself. Christ alone could open the way, by making an offering equal to the demands of the divine law. {RH, December 17, 1872 par. 8}

The offering was designed to meet the demands of the divine law. Those demands are not physical in nature. Yes, physical ailments will be fixed, but that's not THE problem to be fixed.

I'm reminded of the debates I've had with people who claim that Jesus died in order to cure roses of their thorns and other such damage that sin has caused our planet.

1 Corinthians 15:3
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

You ask open ended questions and do not follow through with an answer. You asked "how did God destroy Jerusalem?"

"Signs and wonders appeared, foreboding disaster and doom. In the midst of the night an unnatural light shone over the temple and the altar. Upon the clouds at sunset were pictured chariots and men of war gathering for battle. The priests ministering by night in the sanctuary were terrified by mysterious sounds; the earth trembled, and a multitude of voices were heard crying: “Let us depart hence.” The great eastern gate, which was so heavy that it could hardly be shut by a score of men, and which was secured by immense bars of iron fastened deep in the pavement of solid stone, opened at midnight, without visible agency.—Milman, The History of the Jews, book 13. {GC 29.3}

So who opened the Eastern Gate? Who's men of war and chariots shadows were seen on the clouds?

"how did God destroy Jerusalem?" I ask in response, How did God destroy the earth with a flood? How did He destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Your logic is failing.

"A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians, and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when he allows. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {4SP 441.1}

You make it sound as if God does not do the destruction. I am saying that God does the destruction even when He allows evil angels to do it for Him. If we reject Christ then there are many ways God can destroy the wicked. The ultimate 2nd death comes directly from God.

“Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.” “The indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies: He hath utterly destroyed them, He hath delivered them to the slaughter.” “Upon the wicked He shall rain quick burning coals, fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.” Isaiah 9:5; 34:2; Psalm 11:6, margin. Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:10. The earth’s surface seems one molten mass—a vast, seething lake of fire. It is the time of the judgment and perdition of ungodly men—“the day of the Lord’s vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion.” Isaiah 34:8. {DD 59.3}

"Before the destruction of Sodom, God sent a message to Lot, “Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.” The same voice of warning was heard by the disciples of Christ before the destruction of Jerusalem: “When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains.” Luke 21:20, 21. They must not tarry to secure anything from their possessions, but must make the most of the opportunity to escape. {PP 166.3}
There was a coming out, a decided separation from the wicked, an escape for life. So it was in the days of Noah; so with Lot; so with the disciples prior to the destruction of Jerusalem; and so it will be in the last days. Again the voice of God is heard in a message of warning, bidding His people separate themselves from the prevailing iniquity. {PP 166.4}

Jesus experienced the wrath of the Father against sin for us to be saved then gave us prophetic warnings on how to get away from the coming destruction, if we do not listen that is a sin also.

“Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race. It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father’s wrath upon Him as man’s substitute that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God. {DA 753.2}

“…Separation from His Father, the punishment for transgression and sin, was to fall upon Him in order to magnify God's law and testify to its immutability. And this was to settle forever the controversy between the Prince of God and Satan in regard to the changeless character of that law”.
EGW (2nd death)

Do you argue against this?

"Jesus told them that He would stand between the wrath of His Father and guilty man, that He would bear iniquity and scorn, and but few would receive Him as the Son of God." {EW 149.3}

"No sorrow can bear any comparison with the sorrow of Him upon whom the wrath of God fell with overwhelming force. Human nature can endure but a limited amount of test and trial. The finite can only endure the finite measure, and human nature succumbs; but the nature of Christ had a greater capacity for suffering; for the human existed in the divine nature, and created a capacity for suffering to endure that which resulted from the sins of a lost world. The agony which Christ endured, broadens, deepens, and gives a more extended conception of the character of sin, and the character of the retribution which God will bring upon those who continue in sin. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ to the repenting, believing sinner (Manuscript 35, 1895). {5BC 1103.4}

"Christ felt much as sinners will feel when the vials of God’s wrath shall be poured out upon them. Black despair, like the pall of death, will gather about their guilty souls, and then they will realize to the fullest extent the sinfulness of sin. Salvation has been purchased for them by the suffering and death of the Son of God. It might be theirs, if they would accept of it willingly, gladly; but none are compelled to yield obedience to the law of God. If they refuse the heavenly benefit and choose the pleasures and deceitfulness of sin, they have their choice, and at the end receive their wages, which is the wrath of God and eternal death. They will be forever separated from the presence of Jesus, whose sacrifice they had despised. They will have lost a life of happiness and sacrificed eternal glory for the pleasures of sin for a season. {2T 210.1}

Sounds like Mrs White DID NOT agree with YOU APL.

The wrath of God did fall on His Son, and this is where we should look if we do not want to receive that wrath ourselves.

You APL, have attempted to discredit what my God showed me and you will proven wrong eventually. I am asking you to reconsider before it's too late because only one of us can be right here.

I was given a vision that you seem to want to contend with. Why?

Please explain the following insights:

1. While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law.
2. And the very fact of His reluctance to execute justice testifies to the enormity of the sins that call forth His judgments and to the severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor.
3. The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them.
4. Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary.

Also, please explain each sentence in the following paragraph. And, in particular, point out which ones support the idea hellfire and brimstone is intrinsic, cause and effect. Thank you.

PS - Please explain each insight and each sentence. Please do not skip over any. Thank you.

The idea that Jesus and Jerusalem are examples of how God will execute justice (punish resurrected sinners) implies He will crucify them and/or allow soldiers to kill them. What do you believe it means?

Yes, Jesus dies for our sins. Yes, Jesus died so we can meet the demands of the law. The demands of the law have not changed, and can not be changed. Thus, there is nothing legal that can satisfy the law. "The law requires righteousness,--a righteous life, a perfect character; and this man has not to give. He cannot meet the claims of God's holy law. {DA 762.2}" There is nothing legal that solves this issue. Man must be restored, healed, or man will not meet the demands of the law. "But Christ, coming to the earth as man, lived a holy life, and developed a perfect character. These He offers as a free gift to all who will receive them. His life stands for the life of men. Thus they have remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. More than this, Christ imbues men with the attributes of God. He builds up the human character after the similitude of the divine character, a goodly fabric of spiritual strength and beauty. Thus the very righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the believer in Christ. God can "be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Romans 3:26. {DA 762.2}". Salvation requires a total transformation, not a legal solution (which does not exist).
The physical ailments are a consequence of sin. Are you saying they are not? A dog getting cancer is a consequence of sin. Are you saying it is not? There is however a much deeper issue in how I understand sin, and that is how deeply it is embedded in the human organism. How to remove sin, and keep you, you, is not a trivial problem. And it tested the Godhead.

There have been many published papers that relate human behavior to our genetic code, both at the base pair level and the epigenome. Certain human behaviors can be predicted based on knowing certain allele types. Selfish and/or benevolent behaviors with a certain amount of accuracy, 75-80%. But not 100%. Our genetic code pushes us, tempts us, but does not force us to certain behaviors. We can resist the temptations, but it is from the power of God. Genesis 3:15 comes into play. Reject the prodding of the Holy Spirit long enough, and we will not respond.

There is an interesting animal model. Google monogamous voles. A tiny little change in the genetic code, is the difference between voles which are monogamous and those that are promiscuous. Moral behavior is tightly tied to the underlying hardware, but does not determine it.

One of the worst crimes the antediluvian world did was genetic engineering. "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. {3SG 64.1}"

Remedies That Cleanse the System.--Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this" (Matthew 13:27, 28). All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation [genetic engineering] he has corrupted the earth with tares. {2SM 288.2

Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {1SP 78.2}

The genetic code is an information system. It is the law on how we operate. The works of God are perfect, Deuteronomy 31:4

The code has been rewritten, and not by God. Satan is the "author of sin". This is not a metaphor. "A great work can be done by presenting to the people the Bible just as it reads. {5T 388.2} I use to read the Bible as metaphor. "Who bore our sin in His body on the tree", 1 Peter 2:24. I now read this literal.

The cure? Jesus Christ:
Hebrews 2:17, to make reconciliation for the sins (real, physical) of the people
Hebrews 2:18, able to succor them that are tempted
Hebrews 4:15 - but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin... (In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. {5BC 1131.3})
John 17:19 - and for their sakes I sanctify myself, that them my be sanctified
Hebrews 5:9 - and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him.

Did Jesus die of crucifixion? No. So that one is out. So what killed Him? Sin.

The example of Jerusalem is as quoted, God's "retributive justice", and how was God involved? He removed His hand of protection. "God destroys no man {COL 84.4}". Is that not clear? it is sin that destroys, "sin, when full grown, brings forth death", James 1:15. It is sin that destroys the sinner.

You are not reading your own quote. You say there is no legal problem or solution, though she points out both in your quote. She says, "More than this," then she talks about God healing us. You see that clearly. What you miss completely is the "this" that she just explained, because you are so stuck on the "more" part. You are running for the end zone before you have secured the ball. I bolded it to help everyone see.

Please address the following post:

One more very important thing. Look at what meets the demands of the law:

The sinner could not come in his own person, with his guilt upon him, and with no greater merit than he possessed in himself. Christ alone could open the way, by making an offering equal to the demands of the divine law. {RH, December 17, 1872 par. 8}

It's the offering that meets the demands of the law, not you, healed or not. Even if you were completely healed, you still would not be worth enough to meet the demands of the law.

And lest we miss a fundamental truth: the law has demands, i.e. legal requirements. Hence, a legal solution is needed.

Will it change anything? Could you please address this: is God's law 1) precriptive, 2) proscriptive, or 3) descriptive?


1. While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law.
What is God's wrath? See Romans 1

2. And the very fact of His reluctance to execute justice testifies to the enormity of the sins that call forth His judgments and to the severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor.
Yes, see Jesus and Him crucified

3. The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them.
See Isaiah 33:14-15

4. Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary.
Absolutely. And at the cross, God did not touch His Son.

The following was posted in response to the first time you asked this question:


Why are you asking this question?

PS - I don't understand how your response explains the four sentences posted above. And you didn't explain each sentence in the paragraph posted above. What does "execute justice" and "execute judgment" mean? Finally, if suffering and first death satisfy the demands of law and justice, what is the purpose of the second resurrection and second death?

Be careful. You are conflating the consequence with the cause. The cure for canine cancer does not require Christ's crucifixion.


While I'm sure that sin causes genetic damage, I'm pretty sure that sin is not in the genes. Sin, though it has physical manifestations, is a moral issue.

And when sin is removed, you will not be you anymore, and the angels will be glad. When man was created in God's image, his fundamental characteristic was love, as God's is. But transgression replaced love with selfishness, and the loving Adam became the accusing Adam. As that selfishness is replaced by godly love, the change - conversion - is so drastic that it is likened to death and rebirth. You can still be recognized, but it will be a whole new you. That's what Jesus died to provide.

The genetic code and other physical damage? If God can reconstruct a person from 6000 year old dust, I'm pretty sure genetic manipulation will be child's play.

BTW, I covered our need to change from the inside in my sermon last Sabbath. I'll upload the audio or video when I figure out the technical issues.

asygo - You are "pretty sure sin is not inherited". If it is not inherited, then are you born perfect? Romans 5:12, sin entered the world by one man, and death by sin, thus death passed to all men. Well, how is this death passed to all men? It has to be inherited, otherwise, everyone is perfect when they are born. But they are not perfect.

You claimed that "when sin is removed, you will not be you anymore". Then who will you be? Will we recognize you in heaven? Of course. You will be you. Will you have any tendency to evil? No more.

Animals - what causes a dog to get cancer? Sin. YES or NO? If sin is just some thought in the mind, then how does it affect the "whole creation" Romans 8:22-23? That is because sin is real, and it is physical, and if affects all living things.

A few EGW quotes on sin and inheritance. I have nearly 70 pages of these. It is ubiquitous in her writings. Yet, if you do not have gene glasses on, you will never see it.

APL,

You misquoted Arnold. As a result, I can agree with both of you and do not find the main points from either of you to be erroneous. Arnold did not say he didn't believe in inherited sin. He said he didn't believe it was in the genes.

Now, consider this: if sin were "inherited" by beings passed along through the genetic code (DNA), then how could Mrs. White possibly hope to cause us to believe we could "overcome hereditary" imperfections? Can one do something to change his or her genes?

I doubt you would think so either--which is why I think you'll end up agreeing with Arnold just as I do.

The manner of "inheritance" is not so much by the "genes" as by the "prenatal influence," i.e. "experience." We are born into sin simply because we have imperfect parents, and their influence upon us begins long before our birth. The genes themselves have weakened on account of sin, but to say that we "have sin" in our genes would open up a whole can of worms, such as Jesus also having been a sinner, for He inherited our weakened genetics too.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC - - what do you inherit from your father? 23 chromosomes in a protein cap. Nothing more. No cytoplasm, no nucleus, no mitochrondria, no other cell organelles. These all come from the mother. So if you inherit anything from your father, it is in the genes. Sin is inherited and cultivated per EGW. You want to only see the cultivated side. But is both, genetic and social.

You ask, "Can one do something to change his or her genes?". There is nothing WE can do. It is all the work of God. EGW:"The Scriptures teach us to seek for the sanctification to God of body, soul, and spirit. In this work we are to be laborers together with God. Much may be done to restore the moral image of God in man, to improve the physical, mental, and moral capabilities. Great changes can be made in the physical system by obeying the laws of God and bringing into the body nothing that defiles. And while we cannot claim perfection of the flesh, we may have Christian perfection of the soul."

Are we to obtain perfect genomes in this life? Not hardly. "When human beings receive holy flesh, they will not remain on the earth, but will be taken to heaven. While sin is forgiven in this life, its results are not now wholly removed. It is at His coming that Christ is to "change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Philippians 3:21). . . . {2SM 33.3}".

Note, that there are genome, and the epigenome. Much of the genome has been destroyed. I'm not speaking off the top of my head, I have the science to support this. There is nothing we as individuals can do to restore the missing information. There is also the epigenome. This is a control mechanism which turns on and off genes and regulates their transcription. Much can be done in this area. Changes can occur in the epigenome which can be inherited to the next generation. The underlying DNA has not changed, but the expression of that DNA has changed. The 10 commandments state, that the iniquity of the father are visited unto the children even to the 3rd and 4th generation, of those that hate God, see Exodus 20:5. This is no arbitrary execution of justice. No legal transfer of guilt. It is real and literal. EGW says, "By inheritance and example the sons become partakers of the father's sin. {PP 306.3} Again, inheritance from a father is only by 23 chromosomes, period. It is in the DNA. I see no other way.

Again, you have not read the quotes, or did not understand them. EGW:"By inheritance and example the sons become partakers of the father's sin." Inheritance AND example. Or this: "Whatever may be our inherited or cultivated tendencies to wrong, we can overcome through the power that He is ready to impart. . . . {CH 440.1}" Again - inherited OR cultivated tendences to wrong.

EGW says: "If those who speak so freely of perfection in the flesh, could see things in the true light, they would recoil with horror from their presumptuous ideas." I can say, AMEN. The science is there, it is clear. Our genomes have been taken over. At least 50% of our DNA is not original, and high estimates put it a 90%, or more! We are degenerating.

As for Christ:
MR No. 1201 - Christ's Mission to Earth (excerpts)
It was sin that separated man from his God, and it is sin that maintains this separation. {16MR 115.2}

What a sight was this for heaven to look upon. Christ, who knew not the least moral taint or defilement of sin, took our nature in its deteriorated condition. {16MR 115.3}
There was not a drop of bitter woe which He did not taste, not a part of the curse which He did not endure, that He might bring many sons and daughters to God. {16MR 116.1}

By taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses of the flesh with which humanity is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled that was spoken by the prophet Esaias, Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He was without a spot. {16MR 116.3}

The enmity referred to in the prophecy in Eden was not to be confined merely to Satan and the Prince of life. It was to be universal. {16MR 117.3}

This last sentence refers to Genesis 3:15, which we usually interpret as a messianic prophesy. But it is more that that. And why the seed of the "woman" and not the man? There is a good answer for this, and it is not just because "woman" represents the church. This verse has many meanings.

With such a mix of both truth and error, I hardly know where to begin.

How about with this part...

If the father never so much as looked upon the mother during the entire pregnancy, and if the mother was content by this, I suppose you have a case. But fathers have much influence upon mothers during their pregnancies. His mood affects hers, in turn affecting the baby. When she becomes irritated, it causes changes in her hormones and in her bloodstream, changes which affect the developing fetus, causing him or her to experience the same moods.

Furthermore, science has demonstrated resoundingly that babies know their father's voice at birth. Why is this? It can only be because they have heard it during the pregnancy. What did that voice say? Was it perfectly saintly throughout the pregnancy? or were there some cross words to influence the new little life?

You be the judge.

Of course, if those "cross words" were "in the DNA," we have all been programmed to sin like robots and don't stand a chance of escaping our predestinations. Thankfully, I believe the DNA is weakened, but does not itself transmit "sin." Again, if it did, then Jesus was a sinner--as the quotes you brought forward demonstrate eloquently.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

There is another option that you are forgetting here APL.

There is an entry in the book of record in heaven for each one of us. When you are born you are not perfect because of being born from fallen parents. It is true that the results of sin are inherited, but each of our record is clean individually when we are born.

“Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and forth generation of them that hate Me.” Children are not punished for parents’ guilt, except as they participate in their sins. It is usually the case, however, that by inheritance and example the sons become partakers of the father’s sin. Wrong tendencies, perverted appetites, and debased morals, as well as physical disease and degeneracy, are transmitted as a legacy from father to son, to the third and fourth generation." {EP 211.5}

We are born with the fallen nature of our fathers before us, but we are not held accountable for sins we have not committed ourselves. We are only held accountable for the sins of our fathers if we continue down the same path as our fathers. This is universally instilled in us by our fathers disposition to sin. We are born in need of the knowledge that saves, we are not born with that knowledge. This is part of the curse, but we are only left here if we do not listen to Christ and refuse to repent.

Have you heard of the covering of light and the Tree of life? If the words of God should be taken literally, (Amen) then there is a literal cloak of righteous light called the outer garment, and a tree that perpetuates life that Adam forfeited for him and us by sinning and being kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

This is the key hat you are missing APL.

To be covered in the protective garment of light is dwelling in the perfect love of God. "After the transgression of Adam and Eve they were naked, for the garment of light and security had departed from them." {LDE 249.2} (I think it interesting that Jesus laid asside His "outer garment" when He washed the disciples feet in the upper room before dying the second death for us in Gethsemane)

Access to the tree of Life is also essential to live forever in perfection. When Adam sinned, he lost the right to access this tree forever for him and his posterity.

"The tree of life had the power of perpetuating life. Adam would have continued to enjoy free access to this tree and have lived forever, but when he sinned he was cut off from the tree of life and became subject to death. Immortality had been forfeited by transgression. {HF 329.1}

"Immortality, promised to man on condition of obedience, had been forfeited by transgression. Adam could not transmit to his posterity that which he did not possess; and there could have been no hope for the fallen race had not God, by the sacrifice of His Son, brought immortality within their reach. While “death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” Christ “hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” Romans 5:12; 2 Timothy 1:10. And only through Christ can immortality be obtained. Said Jesus: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life.” John 3:36. Every man may come into possession of this priceless blessing if he will comply with the conditions. All “who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality,” will receive “eternal life.” Romans 2:7. {DD 14.3}
The only one who promised Adam life in disobedience was the great deceiver. And the declaration of the serpent to Eve in Eden—“Ye shall not surely die”—was the first sermon ever preached upon the immortality of the soul. Yet this declaration, resting solely upon the authority of Satan, is echoed from the pulpits of Christendom and is received by the majority of mankind as readily as it was received by our first parents. The divine sentence, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20), is made to mean: The soul that sinneth, it shall not die, but live eternally. We cannot but wonder at the strange infatuation which renders men so credulous concerning the words of Satan and so unbelieving in regard to the words of God. {DD 14.4}
Had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized. But cherubim and a flaming sword kept “the way of the tree of life” (Genesis 3:24), and not one of the family of Adam has been permitted to pass that barrier and partake of the life-giving fruit. Therefore there is not an immortal sinner. {DD 15.1}

Where in here do you see mentioned "Genome" or "Chromosome"?

Revelation 3:18 I counsel you to buy from me...white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen...

Obviously, you didn't read my post, nor the hundreds of posts I have made on that topic over the years here. Please read my post carefully to see what I actually said.

If sin is genetic, how did Adam's sin get passed on to your dog? Or to your trees? Does the "whole creation" have Adam's genes?

I think you need to take a break from the gene glasses.

We seem to disagree on the fundamental nature sin plays in fallen humanity. Without sin, you will be very different. You will be a new creature. You will be you, but a whole new you. And the main difference won't be physical.

I've heard others say this. But what about "all have sinned" - does this apply to infants? If not, does it imply infants do not sin? Since sinning includes thoughts, feelings, desires, motives (more than words and works) how is it possible infants do not sin? Are their thoughts, feelings, desires, motives naturally neutral or sinless or pure and holy?


This insights makes it clear it is possible to live eternally in spite of sinning. However, it is highly unlikely sinners would live eternally. Most likely they would lop off their head at some point. There is also the ethical issue concerning God perpetuating life in people without hope (eternal life depends on God perpetuating life - not solely on eating from the tree of life).

APL, I see you are busy responding to other posts on this thread. When you have the time please address my last two posts to you. Thank you.

PS - I am enjoying reading your posts. I appreciate your tactfulness, kindness, and patience.

Do you know of anyone who has experienced the kind of rebirth, conversion you described above (full of agape love, free of selfishness)? Elsewhere you've argued people are born again with inbred sin, inward corruption, inherited sinful tendencies which stain everything they cherish, think, say, and do with sin and selfishness while they are abiding in Jesus. How are these sordid elements of humanity passed on to infants?

If our record were at any time clean, such as when we are born, it would make void the Word of God which says "ALL have sinned," and the Word which says "The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." (Psalm 14:2-3)

If newborn babies are "children of men," the Bible says they have "become filthy," and that they do not do good. If they were keeping all of the Law, this could not be said of them. So it is obvious that they have sinned.

I may get into a whole new can of worms here, but I think it is worthy of consideration anyhow...

The sin issue demonstrates why the Bible's definition of a person constitutes one who has been born. The developing fetus is not counted as a "soul." Life, Biblically speaking, begins with the first breath. This doesn't take place till after one is born.

Defining any other way would make it especially difficult to understand the transmission of sin. The zygote, the blastocyst, which are just one or more cells and which have as yet no mind nor choice--how could these forms of life commit "sin?" How could it transgress the law of God?

God does not say that every fetus is a sinner. He says that every child is. A person is not begotten a child before he or she is born. Yet at some point along the way, sin becomes a part of that fetus, transmitted in by the sins of the parents.

If the DNA itself contained sin, then we would be trying to stamp it out by changing our DNA. Are we all to be genetic engineers by trade? If God is doing the "engineering," how is it that past sins, already confessed and forsaken, still affect our present health and condition?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC - WITHOUT CHRIST, WE HAVE NO HOPE!

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live to righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.

Hebrews 2:17-18 Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. {1SM 256.1}

What a sight was this for heaven to look upon. Christ, who knew not the least moral taint or defilement of sin, took our nature in its deteriorated condition. {16MR 115.3}
There was not a drop of bitter woe which He did not taste, not a part of the curse which He did not endure, that He might bring many sons and daughters to God. {16MR 116.1}
By taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses of the flesh with which humanity is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled that was spoken by the prophet Esaias, Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He was without a spot. {16MR 116.3}

Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed.--The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

Did Jesus literally carry our sin in His body on the Tree?
Was Jesus literally made to be sin for us?
Was he tempted in all ways just like us, having been made just like us, yet did not participate "in its sin".

Christ bore our sins, but was not a sinner. He resisted temptation aways.

Are we programmed to sin? WHO has not sinned, save Jesus Christ the Savior?
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 5:12 Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
Psalms 51:5 I have been evil from the day I was born; from the time I was conceived, I have been sinful.
Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Where is my error? You have not pointed that out. I acknowledge prenatal influences. No question! It was the study of prenatal influences, particularly in the area of epigenetics (do you know what epigenetics is?) when I pointed to the issue of added DNA into the system. Evolutionary scientists call the added DNA, "selfish DNA", their term, not mine. A simple example of added DNA is a virus. What is more selfish than a virus? Its whole goal is to take over a cell, and make more of itself, even if that cell is sacrificed in the process. EGW: "All sin is selfishness."

The question is, is sin a real problem, or is sin just a legal problem. If sin is just a legal problem, then explain how is affects all creation. EGW: "The evidences of the curse that came upon the earth because of sin, abound everywhere. The whole creation was involved, and today animals languish under this curse. {14MR 297.4} The pronouncments in Genesis 3:14, 16 and 18 can all be explained today from science by mobile genetic elements.

GC, a child can survive outside the womb very early on in life. True, in some cases it may require machines, but they are, nonetheless, very much alive and very much human. Thus, the biblical description of sinners applies to them. So, since it applies to them outside the womb, wouldn't it apply to them inside the womb?

I kind of liked where you were going with your last post, then you hit this wall, "If the DNA itself contained sin, then we would be trying to stamp it out by changing our DNA. Are we all to be genetic engineers by trade? If God is doing the "engineering," how is it that past sins, already confessed and forsaken, still affect our present health and condition?"

I provided a quote of EGW that addresses this.

As to the heredity/genetic paradigm, it is everywhere in the Bible!

• John 3:3-8 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said to you, You must be born again. 8 The wind blows where it wants, and you hear the sound thereof, but can not tell from where it comes, and where it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

• Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

• 1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knows us not, because it knew him not.

Perhaps there is a third option - 3) Sin is a real problem and a legal problem.

Past sins may be pardoned (legal) but the effects may linger on (real).

The physical effects of sinning can be seen and felt throughout the planet. Some of them are cause and effect (disease, crime, war, pollution). Others are forced (evil angels tampering with the laws of nature).

Morbid but true.

If you need to legal side, so be it. You have not addressed the question I've asked, is God's law 1) prescriptive, 2) proscriptive, or 3) descriptive. Perhaps no one even understands the question. 1) prescriptive, you must live like this, 2) proscriptive, you must not do this and that, and 3) descriptive, this is how life operates.

I still view sin from an illness module (Isaiah 53, Matthew 8:17). The illness is sin. The acts of sin, murder, stealing, lying, strife, are all "symptoms" of the disease. You will never cure a disease by controlling the symptoms. You need to get to the root cause. Paul controlled the "symptoms", but was still sinful (full of sin). EGW:

• Paul says that as "touching the righteousness which is in the law"--as far as outward acts were concerned --he was "blameless" (Philippians 3:6); but when the spiritual character of the law was discerned, he saw himself a sinner. Judged by the letter of the law as men apply it to the outward life, he had abstained from sin; but when he looked into the depths of its holy precepts, and saw himself as God saw him, he bowed in humiliation and confessed his guilt. He says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Romans 7:9. When he saw the spiritual nature of the law, sin appeared in its true hideousness, and his self-esteem was gone. {SC 29.3}

So if we look at the outward acts, we can not discern whether these acts are loving or sinful. The acts of sin are just symptoms. Just look at the Madoff scandal, where he would give large sums of money to charities, not because of love, but to draw more people into his scam. His acts of charity were sin! So as with Paul, his outward acts were "right", but he was sinful. The Rich Young Ruler, the same thing! “All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?”, Matthew 19:20 And the Pharisees! Luke 18:11-12 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank you, that I am not as other men are, extortionists, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

When we get to heaven, will we forget our past? Our sins have been blotted out, right? When Uriah meets David and Bathsheba, and along comes Solomon, where there be any confusion as to whose son he is? Not at all. And it won't matter, all the outward things we do are symptoms of the disease. What we want to know, do we still have the disease or not? The disease will be gone. All who accept Jesus will be healed of the disease. There will be no more sin. And since there is no more sin, there will be no more symptoms of sin. Uriah will not need to fear that David will kill him again. (Is it not interesting the Uriah was a Hitite? But I digress....) Do you want to live next to a legally pardoned murderer and adulterer, David? Or do you want to live next to a David, whose heart had been renewed.

• Psalms 51:6-12 Behold, you desire truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part you shall make me to know wisdom. 7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which you have broken may rejoice. 9 Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. 11 Cast me not away from your presence; and take not your holy spirit from me. 12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation; and uphold me with your free spirit.

No, I don't think so. Maybe I hang around the wrong people. Or maybe I'm so messed up that I can't recognize it.

But then, God's promises are not dependent on my knowledge, or lack of it. And that's a good thing.


You've argued the same thing. You just call those elements holiness instead of sin.


I have the same answer today as when you asked me that the last time. I don't know.

And a rather large can it is.

That has always been the only valid option, IMO.

APL,

I'm still waiting for your explanation how dogs and trees get Adam's genes.

To jsot - - What is God's wrath? It is clearly outlined in Romans 1.

• Romans 1:18-32
  18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
  19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.
  20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
  21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
  22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
  23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
  24 Why God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
  25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
  26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
  27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
  28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
  29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
  30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
  31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
  32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

• Deuteronomy 32:20-30
  20 'I will no longer help them,' he said; 'then I will see what happens to them, those stubborn, unfaithful people.
  21 With their idols they have made me angry, jealous with their so-called gods, gods that are really not gods. So I will use a so-called nation to make them angry; I will make them jealous with a nation of fools.
  22 My anger will flame up like fire and burn everything on earth. It will reach to the world below and consume the roots of the mountains.
  23 " 'I will bring on them endless disasters and use all my arrows against them.
  24 They will die from hunger and fever; they will die from terrible diseases. I will send wild animals to attack them, and poisonous snakes to bite them.
  25 War will bring death in the streets; terrors will strike in the homes. Young men and young women will die; neither babies nor old people will be spared.
  26 I would have destroyed them completely, so that no one would remember them.
  27 But I could not let their enemies boast that they had defeated my people, when it was I myself who had crushed them.'
  28 "Israel is a nation without sense; they have no wisdom at all.
  29 They fail to see why they were defeated; they cannot understand what happened.
  30 Why were a thousand defeated by one, and ten thousand by only two? The LORD, their God, had abandoned them; their mighty God had given them up.

Here it is:

When did I say they would get "Adam's genes".

OK - I missed it. So you see it as proscriptive as I understand what you wrote.

Yes, it is a good thing the truth is true with or without our affirmation. However, it is extremely difficult to prove a point without proof; that is, if no one experiences rebirth as you described it, what is the proof your description is true?


Oops! I must have misstated what I believe about it. Let me set the record straight. I do not believe having inbred sin, inward corruption, inherited sinful tendencies is holiness. However, neither do I believe it is guiltiness. Believers do not incur guilt until they cherish or act them out. Subjecting them to a sanctified will and mind, refusing to act them out, is holiness unto the Lord.


They are inherited.

Actually, it's all three.

PS - Please address my other posts to you.

• And through man's disobedience a change was wrought in nature itself. Marred by the curse of sin, nature can bear but an imperfect testimony regarding the Creator. It cannot reveal His character in its perfection. {8T 256.1}

• Although the earth was blighted with the curse, nature was still to be man's lesson book. It could not now represent goodness only; for evil was everywhere present, marring earth and sea and air with its defiling touch. Where once was written only the character of God, the knowledge of good, was now written also the character of Satan, the knowledge of evil. From nature, which now revealed the knowledge of good and evil, man was continually to receive warning as to the results of sin. {Ed 26.2}
  
  In drooping flower and falling leaf Adam and his companion witnessed the first signs of decay. Vividly was brought to their minds the stern fact that every living thing must die. Even the air, upon which their life depended, bore the seeds of death. {Ed 26.3}

See Genesis 3:15. The word translated "seed" is Zera, in the LXX it is Sperma. Look up in BDB or Strongs, we find it means, offspring, children, semen, virile, posterity. It is the genetics. Even the air bears the seeds of death. Don't go into a closed room with someone who has the flu and is coughing. It spreads the "seeds" of the flu around. Hm, EGW has much to say about being in a closed room...

• Continually they were reminded also of their lost dominion. Among the lower creatures Adam had stood as king, and so long as he remained loyal to God, all nature acknowledged his rule; but when he transgressed, this dominion was forfeited. The spirit of rebellion, to which he himself had given entrance, extended throughout the animal creation. Thus not only the life of man, but the nature of the beasts, the trees of the forest, the grass of the field, the very air he breathed, all told the sad lesson of the knowledge of evil. {Ed 26.4}
  But man was not abandoned to the results of the evil he had chosen. In the sentence pronounced upon Satan was given an intimation of redemption. "I will put enmity between thee and the woman," God said, "and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Genesis 3:15. This sentence, spoken in the hearing of our first parents, was to them a promise. Before they heard of the thorn and the thistle, of the toil and sorrow that must be their portion, or of the dust to which they must return, they listened to words that could not fail of giving them hope. All that had been lost by yielding to Satan could be regained through Christ. {Ed 27.1}
  This intimation also nature repeats to us. Though marred by sin, it speaks not only of creation but of redemption. Though the earth bears testimony to the curse in the evident signs of decay, it is still rich and beautiful in the tokens of life-giving power. The trees cast off their leaves, only to be robed with fresher verdure; the flowers die, to spring forth in new beauty; and in every manifestation of creative power is held out the assurance that we may be created anew in "righteousness and holiness of truth." Ephesians 4:24, margin. Thus the very objects and operations of nature that bring so vividly to mind our great loss become to us the messengers of hope. {Ed 27.2}
  As far as evil extends, the voice of our Father is heard, bidding His children see in its results the nature of sin, warning them to forsake the evil, and inviting them to receive the good. {Ed 27.3}

Do dogs sin? Do trees sin? How were they damaged by sin?

How did Adam manage to contaminate all nature with his sin if sin is a genetic disorder? Air doesn't have genes. And the microbes in the air are not descended from Adam. The genetic theory of sin is flawed if we are to believe the Bible and SOP.

What inspiration does tell us is that sin is passed on, not by genetics, but by the spirit. Look at your quote again. The spirit of rebellion is what Adam passed. That is where sin is. And considering he passed it on to creatures that are outside his genetic pool, I doubt that you can find sin in the genes. You can surely find sin's consequences in there, but not sin itself.

Search the Scriptures to see if these things are so. Do not follow in Eve's footsteps of trusting your senses above trusting God's word. Let the sure word of prophecy be your guide, whether or not you see it with your own eyes.

My father says the same thing regarding character perfection. He says he knows that God will save anyone who claims His name, even if that person continues to choose to sin everyday. He says a person is saved even if he does not follow Christ's example and instructions and commands. He says he will change his mind as soon as he finds a perfect person who does not sin.

Rather than trusting God's word, he wants to see it first. To trust your own judgment to that degree is a form of pride of life.

You don't believe "inbred sin, inward corruption, inherited sinful tendencies" are sin, right?


Ahhh, you fooled me. When you asked "how" I thought you were asking the harder question of the mechanism.

Yes, they are inherited at conception. (Look at that, I couldn't help but poke into GC's giant can of worms. LOL)

Not even God says, "Believe it because I said so." Instead, He operates on a better model, namely, "Faith without works is dead." He will disprove Satan's accusations through 144,000 numbered and sealed saints who will refuse to capitulate during the time of trouble. The proof is in the pudding.

Sin, sinful, and sinning. I do not believe having inbred sin, inward corruption, inherited sinful tendencies counts as sinning. People do not incur guilt and condemnation merely because they are born with them. To incur guilt, people must cherish them or act them out. Subjecting them to a sanctified will and mind, refusing to act them out, is holiness unto the Lord.


I suspect they are transferred from parents to children via DNA. Naturally, nurture plays a huge part, too. Are worms edible?

Do dogs kill? Are dogs selfish? Do dogs die? Yes, but I'll bet dogs beat humans in the kindness category often. I read you saying, sin is breaking the rules, it is a legal problem. From the legal point of view, please explain why we see in nature the red in tooth and claw.

And until then what are you going to do? Keep wondering if God really means what He says? If the 144k are here but you don't recognize them, will you doubt God's word?

You can wait for the pudding if you wish. To me, God's word is sufficient. The fulfillment is in His promise.

Do you think God did not expect Eve to believe that sin=death just because He said so? Do you think He wanted Eve to experiment and find out by making her own sin pudding? Restless modern Eves....

I tell my kids, "You are smart if you learn from your mistakes. You are wise if you learn from MY mistakes." We would be even wiser if we learn from God who never makes mistakes.

APL, have you made a conscious choice not to address my posts? If so, no problem.

That's where we differ. You look at inbred sin and say that it is not sin unless you do something with it first. I look at inbred sin and say that it is sin.

That's the only reason you can say that the born-again has no sin, because you see these evil things and refuse to call them sin.

I call them sin.

asygo - I don't know your background, perhaps you know no science. Where have I ever said Adam contaminated all nature. I have not. Yet, you make such a statement. I believe I have quoted in this thread the following by EGW which explains WHO contaminated all nature.

• Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge, which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this." [Matthew 13:27, 28.] All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {16MR 247.2}

The you say, "the air does not have genes". Can you tell me there are no viruses in the air? What do viruses contain? DNA or RNA, which code for what? Genes. Do you still claim we can not pick up genes in the air?

If sin is passed on "by the spirit", then are child born perfect? Do you deny that EGW ever talked about genetics? Are you really bold enough to make that claim?

The you say, "I doubt that you will find sin in the genes". If sin is breaking the rules, then how can if affect us and all creation? Please explain. Or can you just admit, you don't know?

Like you, I am 100% convinced Jesus will win the great controversy. One of the reasons I am so thoroughly convinced is because Jesus, while here, developed a perfect character in spite of His sinful flesh.

I couldn't help noticing you didn't say - "Having them is the same as sinning."

I don't think they are. If inbred sin, inward corruption, inherited sinful tendencies and were passed on that way, Jesus would have them also. And you know I don't believe Jesus had inward sin, inward corruption or sinful tendencies. He was the Holy One of Israel.


With lots of BBQ sauce.

Sin is breaking the rules. You break the 10C, that's a sin. It's very straightforward.

Yes, there's a legal problem. But what you fail to grasp is that it is NOT ONLY a legal problem. Hence, you are completely flummoxed when faced with an aspect of sin that is not within the legal realm. And the same is true when it is not within the genetic realm.

I don't think you answered my question of how sin affects all creation. Can you please elaborate?

Actually I did. You replied to the four sentences,I gave a response. to the four sentences. And to the quotation from The Great Controversy, Read the post in message #147251. Read you Great Controversy quote, and the Bible quotes in that post. What is God's wrath in Romans 1? How was God's wrath expressed in Deuteronomy 32? That is the answer.

You've seen by now that when I don't know, I don't have a problem saying so. Try it out. Ask me a question I don't know the answer to.

However, I do know that what you are proposing is a specious amalgamation of spiritual and scientific information. You take a piece here and a piece there, throw it all together and hope to come out with something palatable. That might work for stew, but not here.

We talked about why Jesus had to die. Your best answer is that dogs have cancer. But we all know that's not the crux of the Great Controversy. Enoch was sanctified long before Jesus was crucified, which causes logical problems for your position.

Then you bring up sin being in the genes. Since we know that sin entered the world through Adam, you can't answer how his genes can spread to the dogs and plants.

Now you bring up that Satan did this. Of course, we have known this all along. We have covered that quote many times in many threads over the years. But here's the question for you: How did Satan damage a plant's genetic code by tempting it to sin?

You see, it's really untenable to say that sin is in the genes. The marks of sin will be manifest in the genes, sure. But sin itself is not in the genes. Sin is a spiritual matter.

Hence, while dogs and cacti bear the marks of sin, they do not sin. And Jesus did not die to redeem them.

Lastly, while I am no geneticist, not even a biologist, I've taken a few science classes as I worked for my electrical engineering degree. And though I lack the background in the life sciences, I think my logic and critical thinking skills still apply. Bad logic is bad logic, no matter where you find it.

APL, thank you.

Are you asking a general question like MM did? Or do you want to know the mechanism?

APL, WITHOUT A sinless CHRIST WE HAVE NO HOPE!

But, if "sin" is in our DNA, and Christ inherited our DNA by virtue of having been born as a "son of man," taking upon Himself our mortal flesh, then Jesus was NOT sinless, and we really do have no hope!

I really have a hard time understanding how anyone could have difficulty understanding that point. I am soooo glad that sin is not "in the DNA" as you seem to view it. And whether or not you recognize this truth, it is to your benefit that sin was not in Jesus' DNA. A sinner could never have atoned for us. Only a perfect Lamb could suffice.


When did Jesus bear our sins? When He was born? Or when they were placed upon Him "on the tree?" If I sprinkle my blood on you, is it also running in your bloodstream? If our sins were placed upon Christ, did they make Him a sinner?

Does being tempted constitute "sin" in your opinion? Since Jesus was "tempted," He's a sinner now? Or would you agree with me that Jesus never sinned, even though the devil attempted to entice Him to do so?

Jesus accepted our flesh, with all of its encumbrances but without its inclinations toward sin. Jesus had no "propensity" toward sin, as is brought out in other statements from Mrs. White which you have not here included. In other words, when Jesus was stung by a bee, it hurt, just as it would for you or me. He may have been tempted by that to become irritable, but He never did. He had no leanings toward sin.

I answered this already just above.

We are NOT programmed to sin beyond our ability to choose. Since we cannot choose our DNA any more than by taking thought we can add a cubit to our stature, it is clear that sin cannot be inherent in our DNA. We can choose NOT to sin. Sin is a choice, not a genetic property.

Thank you for using the KJV. It translates those verses more accurately, and helps us put them in the proper historical context. Some translations put them in present tense such that it appears that we must continue to sin. There is no statement in all of the Bible that declares we must sin. Praise God! We still have freedom of choice! And God is able to, with the temptation, make a way of escape, that we may be able to bear it!

Did Jesus' immune system keep out all viruses? Or did He "sin?" (I think you would agree that permitting "selfishness" would be sin.)

Your error, APL, is to say that the DNA transmits "sin." I'm sure we might both agree that it transmits sins' effects. But there is a difference between cause and effect which must be clearly maintained here. It is a most important distinction, for if sin is in our DNA, we have no hope and no choice.

A virus might be a relic of sin, and it might present object lessons to us in terms of selfishness, but it is not itself sin, nor sinful. A virus has no mind. A virus is not even "alive." It cannot transgress the law of God. In fact, the laws of God are strictly obeyed at all atomic and cellular levels.


If God caused sin to be present in the DNA of all living creatures, how is it that God is not complicit? If God did not do this, who did and how?

You recall, the "curses" came from Whom? Were they for good or for evil?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Mike, I believe that at some point, every sinner has to have his or her first sin. Doesn't that seem reasonable? For every baby to be a sinner at birth requires that he or she has sinned already by that point. I believe the primary sins that a fetus could commit center around the emotions. Selfishness is early experienced, and early imitated. These first sins are sins of ignorance, certainly, but nonetheless sinful. These sins are inherited from the parents.

No blastocyst or zygote could ever hope to survive outside the womb. The early stages of pregnancy develop the brain and spinal cord. Without a mind, no choice is made. Without a choice, sin is not committed. But the mind begins its development long before the internal organs are developed enough to sustain life outside the womb. By the time life can be sustained apart from the mother, even the earliest of premies will have participated in selfishness. As the wise man said, "foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child."

When a baby takes its first breath, its own independent life officially begins. Even the Bible speaks of infants being circumcised on the eighth day, something that would be impossible if one tried to enter the womb to do this on the eighth day after conception. So the baby's age is counted by God as beginning at his or her birth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

APL,

The "holy flesh" craze was a spiritualistic delusion, and Ellen White has much to say about it.

I don't think you are using the term in the same context as Mrs. White used it. In any case, it is clear from her statements that "holy flesh" will not be ours prior to the transfiguration at Jesus' coming. Only then will we leave behind our mortality and corruptible for immortality and incorruptible.

Again, if we were required to have "holy flesh" in order to have eradicated sin, then we could not hope to have a "holy heart," could we? But Mrs. White is clear that we certainly may have a holy heart even now.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Did I say that we are required to have "holy flesh"? No. Do righteous people still die this side of the second coming? Yes.

• Romans 7:15-25
  15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
  16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
  17 But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.
  18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
  19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
  20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.
  21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand.
  22 For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self,
  23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
  24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
  25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.

EGW tells us this about God's law:

• God's law is written by His own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every faculty which has been entrusted to man. {SpM 40.6}

Is she speaking metaphorically, or literally? I read her literally. And the only way I see to take this literally, is to look at where the law is encoded. And the information system of the body is the genome.

APL,

Let me suggest at least one other way of looking at it.

Addictions:

• Alcohol
• Caffeine
• Drugs
• Food
• Sex
• Tobacco
• etc.

Is all of this encoded in the genes? Or is it actually encoded in the body's chemical pathways? Can genes give us "desires?" If we "want" to sin, it was because it was "in our genes?" We had "no choice?"

You might as well just say "the devil made me do it."

The way in which you interpret Paul's statements appears to put them in direct contradiction to one of Jesus' own. He said "no man can serve two masters." How do you explain this?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Have you read the EGW quotes I presented? "Jesus took our nature, but never participated in its sin" {16MR 116.3} Jesus bore our sin in His body on the tree 1 Peter 2:24. He was made like His brothers, Hebrews 2:17. And this: Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
So your idea that if Christ took our nature, that he could not be the Savior fails.Please explain HOW sins were placed on Christ? Was it a legal transfer? Was Christ "perfect" before the cross? Hebrews 5:8-9 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him; John 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Jesus was born with the same "sickness" we are born with. He worked out the plan of salvation in His life. He sanctified himself, so to be able to santify us. Temptation is not sin. He was tempted just as we are, yet without sin. He never participated in our sin. Yes, I know EGW's comments about Jesus' propensities very well. Are you saying Jesus could not be tempted? When did Satan try to tempt Jesus the hardest? When he had been without food for 40 days, in a very weak condition. And yet he did not fall.Are you claiming we have the ability in ourselves to not sin? Jesus said, John 15:5 for without me you can do nothing. Without Christ, we are totally lost. The only way we can withstand temptation is by Christ.Hm - All have sinned, Romans 3:23. EGW: "The law requires righteousness,--a righteous life, a perfect character; and this man has not to give. He cannot meet the claims of God's holy law. But Christ, coming to the earth as man, lived a holy life, and developed a perfect character. These He offers as a free gift to all who will receive them. {DA 762.2}"EGW: Christ took our nature but "did not participate in its sin". Righteous people get sick and die. Why? SIN. Having sin in our body, and participating with that sin are separate things. Did God put sin in our body? NO. Did I claim He did? NO. Who did? Satan. God's Curses - - did God cause evil or did He allow it?

• Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; on your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life:

I think you have some science background, do I recall that? Why does a snake have so many thoracic vertebrae? Do you know? The paper on this was published recently. It is a transposon in the genes, an mobile genetic element, which has messed up the internal clock of the snake during embryogenesis.

• Genesis 3:17-18 And to Adam he said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it: cursed is the ground for your sake; in sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to you; and you shall eat the herb of the field;

The ground is cursed. Who cursed it? Who causes the thorns and thistles to form? God??? NO!!! All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {16MR 247.2} Amalgamation - genetic engineering. Do not say God causes all the grief that we now have. This is a charge involved in the great controversy. I think I already addressed the pain of childbirth in a prior post.

You say my error is to say that DNA transmits sin. I say yes! It transmits the disease sin. The symptoms of the disease is pointed out by the 10 commandments. The behavior is not sin, it is the symptoms. Christ took our nature, and cured it, He sanctified Himself for oursake. And when He had "purged our sin" he sat down at the right hand of the Father, Hebrews 1:3. Question - are your sins purged? If not, then what is Paul talking about? He had the same "sin" that we have, and He fixed the problem. This is the plan of Salvation! It is healing. It is not legal, this is not a legal solution, it is a real solution. The problem you have is that you can't believe that sin can be identified. But consider this, the wages of sin is death. If it could be shown that disease, aging, and death is caused by a problem in the genome, would that have any influence on you of what the nature of sin is? Remember, EGW tells us that one of the things that Satan is constantly representing is the "nature of sin", {GC 569.1}

We have choice, and I think the only reason we do is because God stepped in in the beginning. Read Genesis 3:15. To this point EGW says: But when Satan heard the declaration that enmity should exist between himself and the woman, and between his seed and her seed, he knew that his efforts to deprave human nature would be interrupted; that by some means man was to be enabled to resist his power. {GC 505.3}

Our brains have receptors for these substances. Where do these receptors come from? Are they not encoded in our genome? Are not all the receptors, and all the control of all cellular functions, the chemical pathways, controlled by the genome? Are there "pleasures" to sin? Hebrews 11:24-25 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

Do people expirence pleasures with sex, alchohol, nicotine, etc.? Many do! These things can kill them, and they still do them! Why? They are slave to them. I think I would be bold enough to say that ALL sin is addiction: John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin." But Christ is the answer: Romans 5:20 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

Remember what EGW wrote in Steps to Christ.

• God's promise is, "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall search for Me with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:13. {SC 43.1}
  
  The whole heart must be yielded to God, or the change can never be wrought in us by which we are to be restored to His likeness. By nature we are alienated from God. The Holy Spirit describes our condition in such words as these: "Dead in trespasses and sins;" "the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint;" "no soundness in it." We are held fast in the snare of Satan, "taken captive by him at his will." Ephesians 2:1; Isaiah 1:5, 6; 2 Timothy 2:26. God desires to heal us, to set us free. But since this requires an entire transformation, a renewing of our whole nature, we must yield ourselves wholly to Him. {SC 43.2}
  
  The warfare against self is the greatest battle that was ever fought. The yielding of self, surrendering all to the will of God, requires a struggle; but the soul must submit to God before it can be renewed in holiness. {SC 43.3}

And I like the next paragraph.

• The government of God is not, as Satan would make it appear, founded upon a blind submission, an unreasoning control. It appeals to the intellect and the conscience. "Come now, and let us reason together" is the Creator's invitation to the beings He has made. Isaiah 1:18. God does not force the will of His creatures. He cannot accept an homage that is not willingly and intelligently given. A mere forced submission would prevent all real development of mind or character; it would make man a mere automaton. Such is not the purpose of the Creator. He desires that man, the crowning work of His creative power, shall reach the highest possible development. He sets before us the height of blessing to which He desires to bring us through His grace. He invites us to give ourselves to Him, that He may work His will in us. It remains for us to choose whether we will be set free from the bondage of sin, to share the glorious liberty of the sons of God. {SC 43.4}

The way we are set free from the "bondage of sin", our addictions, is Jesus Christ.

"It is the privilege of parents to take their children with them to the gates of the city of God, saying, “I have tried to instruct my children to love the Lord, to do His will, and to glorify Him.” To such the gate will be thrown open, and parents and children will enter in. But all cannot enter. Some are left outside with their children, whose characters have not been transformed by submission to the will of God. A hand is raised, and the words are spoken, “You have neglected home duties. You have failed to do the work that would have fitted the soul for a home in heaven. You cannot enter.” The gates are closed to the children because they have not learned to do the will of God, and to parents because they have neglected the responsibilities resting upon them. [Manuscript 31, 1909.] {CG 13.1}

Pray about this.

How can we have a record of sin if we have not been born yet? Does a baby come from the womb telling lies and chasing the nurses saying "Get me a drink doc"? No, but before our birth, because our parents are fallen since Adam, and because we are born in a fallen world to parents who have not been perfected, while still in the womb we develop characters prone to sin because we are not covered in righteousness. We develop the characters of our fathers, and mothers and brothers and friends because of our fallen nature.

"Parents have a more serious charge than they imagine. The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God." {CG 475.3}

The sin that we inherit, and are born into, is not having God as our master in life yet; not having the law of liberty and the testimony of Jesus written in our hearts as Adam did at his creation.

Sin is the transgression of the law.

We are born selfish and when this is manifested we are breaking the first commandment. So this is the extent of our individual sins after birth. We are born without the knowledge of God, but He does not account this as our failure until the age of accountability. He holds our parents responsible for us, and since they are fallen, we are fallen. The advantage children have being born to sanctified mothers is the knowledge and teaching that can sanctify the children if their individual characters will accept it.

Would God burn an infant in hell? NO WAY!!!!!!!! If born to unsanctified parents they would come from the grave with the mother, and when the fires fall, they would vanish as if never born.

If all have sinned because they are born into this life then you are saying Jesus sinned by being born, and this is not true.

So logically what do you have left?

The exact moment of birth, we do not have a record of sin except our fallen nature inherited through our parents, but because we are born with the fallen nature of our fathers, we are cut off from the Father and in the fallen condition of our souls born without the white robe of innocence.

"The white robe of innocence was worn by our first parents when they were placed by God in holy Eden. They lived in perfect conformity to the will of God. All the strength of their affections was given to their heavenly Father. A beautiful soft light, the light of God, enshrouded the holy pair. This robe of light was a symbol of their spiritual garments of heavenly innocence. Had they remained true to God it would ever have continued to enshroud them. But when sin entered, they severed their connection with God, and the light that had encircled them departed. Naked and ashamed, they tried to supply the place of the heavenly garments by sewing together fig leaves for a covering... Nothing can man devise to supply the place of his lost robe of innocence. No fig-leaf garment, no worldly citizen dress, can be worn by those who sit down with Christ and angels at the marriage supper of the Lamb. {COL 311.2}
Only the covering which Christ Himself has provided can make us meet to appear in God’s presence. This covering, the robe of His own righteousness, Christ will put upon every repenting, believing soul. “I counsel thee,” He says, “to buy of Me ... white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear.” Revelation 3:18. {COL 311.3}

Since the fall of Adam, men are born without the White Robe that Adam was created with. At creation Adam did not have to repent for salvation as he did in his fallen condition. If children would have been born to them before the fall they would have been covered also.

Within the womb we begin to assimilate the characters of our fathers and mothers. My mother used to play Beatles records for me in her womb and I became a rock and roll musician.

Jesus had the character of His Father, we the worlds.

Are you just trying to be inflammatory because you do not understand what I've been saying so you make false charges - Jesus dies to save dogs. Really.

And don't stop with Enoch, remember Moses and Elijah. Can you clarify for me, so you believe or not believe that Jesus had to die to save Enoch, Moses and Elijah? Yes - Jesus had to die? Or No, Jesus did not need to die to save them? What is your answer?

So if you do not know, why do you condemn it?

APL, I think Asygo was not saying he does not know this issue but was trying to show you the problem you have through his example.

APL,

We agree that all sins are addictions. We disagree in the source of these addictions. You say that addictions, being sin, are encoded in the DNA. I say that such a concept is patently false. If it were true, then our DNA is changing daily. If our DNA were changing so much, fluctuating in and out of sin, then so much for trying to identify anyone by his or her DNA. So much for DNA paternity tests, etc., for none of them could be considered reliable.

I have never drunk alcohol in my life. I am not addicted to it. You say it is because it is not in my DNA. Now, suppose tomorrow I drink a glass and become an instant addict. You say my DNA just changed, right? Sounds like an easy way to avoid criminal conviction per DNA test--change your habits overnight.

How often does your DNA change, APL?

APL, the core of your flawed belief about the DNA has perhaps affected your theology in a dangerous way. You seem focused unbalancedly on salvation through Christ alone, without any participation in that salvation on the human side. Such is not in accordance with inspiration. I'm not sure that you would word it as I have, but I do have genuine concern for your understanding, for it may mean a loss of salvation for many people. Many seem to have the idea that there is nothing they can do, that it is all up to Christ. They hold themselves powerless, and therefore lean on a "saved by grace" belief. Certainly we are saved by grace. But not without due diligence on our part.

As has been said by some, we are not saved by works, but we are not saved without them either. Here are some balancing statements from Mrs. White regarding this cooperation between God and man.


As you quoted from the Steps to Christ, another important statement found there is this one (italics original):


We need to understand the "true force of the will." We have a choice. Sin is not an uncontrollable part of our DNA of which we have no choosing. It is a choice. We must exercise our will and wrestle unto blood in overcoming it. It is man's part to resist temptation, then God's part to cause the devil to flee. We must first choose to surrender our will to God before He can help us.

No one is saved by "Christ alone." Everyone is saved by "Christ alone." Those opposites are both true, depending upon the context. Christ alone has merited our salvation, and paid the penalty for our sins. In that sense, everyone who is saved must be saved by Him. "There is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved." But in another sense, Christ alone can save no one. Even Jesus is powerless to save the sinner who will not choose Him. God's law of love has given us an unrevocable right of choice which places us in the position of final arbiters of our own destinies. We can either choose Christ, and accept His salvation, dying daily to selfishness and to sin; or we can choose the pleasures of sin for a season, and finally be destroyed for it.

If the DNA were the arbiters instead of our own choices, we would truly be predestined to destruction--for we have no power to choose our DNA. How thankful I am that this is not so! It is rather difficult trying to choose one's own biological parents, don't you think? How else could one affect his or her own DNA?

Maybe all my years in Biology class were in vain, but I was taught that evolution of the DNA only occurs during the sexual process of meiosis and not during ordinary cellular mitosis. There is no way of changing one's DNA for the better, but there are a few ways of increasing the odds of changing it for the worse. Exposing oneself to radiation is one of those. Let's suppose that radiation can cause cancer. Is radiation now "sin?" Yet that is just the sort of reasoning you use to support your view of sin being present throughout the natural world.

For example, you said this: "Our brains have receptors for these substances. Where do these receptors come from? Are they not encoded in our genome? Are not all the receptors, and all the control of all cellular functions, the chemical pathways, controlled by the genome?"

Now, by that same logic, one might conclude that his or her sinful appetites were also encoded into the DNA, since the DNA provided that he or she should have those taste buds to begin with, or those eyes to see with, or the organs to sense with? But, if the DNA provides our features that give us the opportunity to enjoy sin, is it God's fault for making us this way? God made our DNA. Did God make "sin?"

It is true that our brains have chemical pathways in them, such as receptor sites for dopamine, acetylcholine, etc. There are chemicals which cross the synaptic clefts of the axons and dendrites, and the neurons can create new synapses with increased activity of a certain brain pathway (thought). Each repetition of a thing can strengthen those pathways, and each neglect of it can weaken them. But are these "pathways" inherited in the DNA? Absolutely not. They are developed only by use. This is perfectly understandable and logical. Any biologist who tried to submit that these habits were found in the DNA would be laughed out of the room. Everyone knows that while a weakness may be inherited in the DNA, a habit cannot be. The DNA may be able to give one a "propensity," but it cannot give one a "sin."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

here you bring up a false statement. Shall I quote the scripture for you again? Romans 5:12 "Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:" To whom did Adam pass his genes to? "All men". Not dogs.

Who had dominion of this planet in the beginning? Adam. Who had dominion after Adam's fall?

• Continually they were reminded also of their lost dominion. Among the lower creatures Adam had stood as king, and so long as he remained loyal to God, all nature acknowledged his rule; but when he transgressed, this dominion was forfeited. The spirit of rebellion, to which he himself had given entrance, extended throughout the animal creation. Thus not only the life of man, but the nature of the beasts, the trees of the forest, the grass of the field, the very air he breathed, all told the sad lesson of the knowledge of evil. {Ed 26.4}

Does sin cause disease in humans and animals? Yes or No. If no, please explain how come animals have sickness and disease. If yes, please explain how a "spiritual matter" causes sickness and disease in all life.

So, a lion that devours a man is not evil?

Bad logic, I found it- accusing me of saying Adams genes passed to dogs.

Did dogs die before sin? Why do dogs die?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You'll have the burden of answering these things for yourself, certainly, but as for me, I'm happy to accept God's say-so on the matter. Here's what is written for us:

So if death and sin entered the world by Adam's "sinful genes," then those genes must also have been passed on to the animals. You have already stated that this did not occur. Perhaps you will reformulate your view in light of this new evidence.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

e agree that all sins are addictions. We disagree in the source of these addictions. You say that addictions, being sin, are encoded in the DNA. I say that such a concept is patently false. If it were true, then our DNA is changing daily. If our DNA were changing so much, fluctuating in and out of sin, then so much for trying to identify anyone by his or her DNA. So much for DNA paternity tests, etc., for none of them could be considered reliable.

Did I say the source of the addictions was the DNA? I said, the source of the receptors for the various substances you listed are in the DNA. They must be, or we would not have them.

I have never drunk alcohol in my life. I am not addicted to it. You say it is because it is not in my DNA. Now, suppose tomorrow I drink a glass and become an instant addict. You say my DNA just changed, right? Sounds like an easy way to avoid criminal conviction per DNA test--change your habits overnight.

I come from a family of alcoholics. I probably have the receptor which would predispose me to alcohol. I have never tried alcohol. My brother is an alcoholic. The receptors are clearly, they must be, encoded in the DNA. And note - I said "predispose".

How often does your DNA change, APL?

Contantly. If you think DNA is static, then you are greatly mistaken.

APL, the core of your flawed belief about the DNA has perhaps affected your theology in a dangerous way. You seem focused unbalancedly on salvation through Christ alone, without any participation in that salvation on the human side. Such is not in accordance with inspiration. I'm not sure that you would word it as I have, but I do have genuine concern for your understanding, for it may mean a loss of salvation for many people. Many seem to have the idea that there is nothing they can do, that it is all up to Christ. They hold themselves powerless, and therefore lean on a "saved by grace" belief. Certainly we are saved by grace. But not without due diligence on our part.

Have you not read the quotes I posted??? If you had, you would not have just make your false accusation on what I said. THE GREAT BATTLE EVER FOUGHT, IS THE BATTLE AGAINST SELF. This is found in Steps to Christ chapter 5. Yes, everything depends on the right action of the will. But it is Christ that does the transformation - IF WE LET HIM. We must submit to Him. And it is a struggle!

• Everything depends on the right action of the will. The power of choice God has given to men; it is theirs to exercise. You cannot change your heart, you cannot of yourself give to God its affections; but you can choose to serve Him. You can give Him your will; He will then work in you to will and to do according to His good pleasure. Thus your whole nature will be brought under the control of the Spirit of Christ; your affections will be centered upon Him, your thoughts will be in harmony with Him. {SC 47.1}
  Desires for goodness and holiness are right as far as they go; but if you stop here, they will avail nothing. Many will be lost while hoping and desiring to be Christians. They do not come to the point of yielding the will to God. They do not now choose to be Christians. {SC 47.2}
  Through the right exercise of the will, an entire change may be made in your life. By yielding up your will to Christ, you ally yourself with the power that is above all principalities and powers. You will have strength from above to hold you steadfast, and thus through constant surrender to God you will be enabled to live the new life, even the life of faith. {SC 48.1}

I accept your appology in advance.

If the DNA were the arbiters instead of our own choices, we would truly be predestined to destruction--for we have no power to choose our DNA. How thankful I am that this is not so! It is rather difficult trying to choose one's own biological parents, don't you think? How else could one affect his or her own DNA?

You are right, I did not choose to be a sinner. I was born this way. Again - have you studies epigenetics? We can't change our underlying DNA. We can change or epigenome. Interestingly, diet have a great roll to play. You should read the work of Dean Ornish on diet and prostate cancer. Fascinating.

Maybe all my years in Biology class were in vain, but I was taught that evolution of the DNA only occurs during the sexual process of meiosis and not during ordinary cellular mitosis. There is no way of changing one's DNA for the better, but there are a few ways of increasing the odds of changing it for the worse. Exposing oneself to radiation is one of those. Let's suppose that radiation can cause cancer. Is radiation now "sin?" Yet that is just the sort of reasoning you use to support your view of sin being present throughout the natural world.

Again, have you studied epigenetics? I'll bet you never studied mobile genetic elements in your biology classes. Do you know that at least 50% of our DNA is not original? And one author suggests that perhaps as much as 90% is not original, this published within the last year and a half. Do you know that the damage from ionizing radiation occurs in the mobile genetic elements cause gene breakage? that other external energy forces also affect breakage at the mobile genetic elements such as heat, and electomagnetic energy? Hm - where ever sin is found our God is a consuming fire.

For example, you said this: "Our brains have receptors for these substances. Where do these receptors come from? Are they not encoded in our genome? Are not all the receptors, and all the control of all cellular functions, the chemical pathways, controlled by the genome?"

Yes, the chemical pathways are controlled by the genome. What else controls them? But the expression of the genome is constantly changing. Again - epigenetics.

Now, by that same logic, one might conclude that his or her sinful appetites were also encoded into the DNA, since the DNA provided that he or she should have those taste buds to begin with, or those eyes to see with, or the organs to sense with? But, if the DNA provides our features that give us the opportunity to enjoy sin, is it God's fault for making us this way? God made our DNA. Did God make "sin?"

The tendancies are encoded in our DNA. If you belive that all our DNA came from God, then you could make that accusation that God is responsible for sin. However, we know that much of our DNA is not original. Where did it come from? Matthew 13:24-28 Another parable put he forth to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did not you sow good seed in your field? from where then has it tares? 28 He said to them, An enemy has done this.

It is true that our brains have chemical pathways in them, such as receptor sites for dopamine, acetylcholine, etc. There are chemicals which cross the synaptic clefts of the axons and dendrites, and the neurons can create new synapses with increased activity of a certain brain pathway (thought). Each repetition of a thing can strengthen those pathways, and each neglect of it can weaken them. But are these "pathways" inherited in the DNA? Absolutely not. They are developed only by use. This is perfectly understandable and logical. Any biologist who tried to submit that these habits were found in the DNA would be laughed out of the room. Everyone knows that while a weakness may be inherited in the DNA, a habit cannot be. The DNA may be able to give one a "propensity," but it cannot give one a "sin."

Are there "pleasure centers" in the brain? Where did they come from? How is acetylcholine made? Is it not encoded in the DNA? All the receptors are encoded in the DNA. They must be or we would not have them. Could sex be pleasureful even outside of marriage? Habits are definately reinforced by the DNA - again have you studied epigenetics?

• The old nature, born of blood and the will of the flesh, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The old ways, the hereditary tendencies, the former habits, must be given up; for grace is not inherited. The new birth consists in having new motives, new tastes, new tendencies. Those who are begotten unto a new life by the Holy Spirit, have become partakers of the divine nature, and in all their habits and practices they will give evidence of their relationship to Christ. When men who claim to be Christians retain all their natural defects of character and disposition, in what does their position differ from that of the worldling? They do not appreciate the truth as a sanctifier, a refiner. They have not been born again (RH April 12, 1892)

If you agree that the "propensity" toward sin is in the DNA, and this quote says they need to be removed, then what does this mean to you? Is it not interesting that this is called, being "born again"?

I'll give you a science example. Have you heard of the Agouti mouse? Google it. The agouti even made the cover of I think was, Time Magazine, January 6, 2010. You can have identical twin agouti mice, and they look completely different. The agouti gene can be triggered by environmental factors. BPA is one of those triggers. Exposure to BPA unmethylated the agouti gene, causing the mouse to have golden fur and to be obese, while an identical twin which did not have the gene unmethylated was brown and slender. Take away the environmental factor, and the gene remained on, and was passed to their offsping. And guess what, this persisted for several generations. So obesity and golden fur became an inherited trait which could be passed on for several generations. Did the mouse choose to be fat? No. But the genetic tendancy where preprogrammed. Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.

• By inheritance and example the sons become partakers of the father's sin. Wrong tendencies, perverted appetites, and debased morals, as well as physical disease and degeneracy, are transmitted as a legacy from father to son, to the third and fourth generation. This fearful truth should have a solemn power to restrain men from following a course of sin. {PP 306.3}
• Selfishness is inwrought in our very being. It has come to us as an inheritance, and has been cherished by many as a precious treasure. {HS 138.7}
• These dear children received from Adam an inheritance of disobedience, of guilt and death. The Lord has given to the world Jesus Christ, and His work was to restore to the world the moral image of God in man, and to reshape the character. {13MR 14.1}

So Green, do you still deny that wrong tendencies, perverted appetities and physical disease are transmitted from father to son as an inheritance?

No, before sin, dogs did not die. Dogs die because of sin.

I said, the seeds of death in the system were planted by Satan. When Adam sinned, he opened the flood gates and lost dominion. Satan became the "prince of this world". See {Ed 26.3}.

Let's just stick to the Bible, ok?

Jesus was not a sinner, but He inherited the DNA of sinners. If the DNA carried sin, He would also have had sin.

If Jesus' DNA were not truly "human," then He never lived as one of us, and His entire life was a fictitious charade.

Therefore, it is impossible for the DNA to carry "sin."

If we speak of the "effects of sin," then certainly the DNA can have those. But the DNA cannot possibly carry sin itself.

What is sin?



Sin is an act. It is a transgression of the law, whether one is aware of the law or not. Transgressing the law equals "sin."

But DNA is not an act. DNA is a thing. DNA can be no more sinful than can water, formaldehyde, or sand. DNA contains information for how to make your arm. Is your arm "sinful?" If the DNA contains "sin," then your entire body is "sin." You cannot choose to have "holy flesh," so you would be impossibly incarcerated in a sinful condition with no hope of escape this side of the second advent.

It seems we are on such different wavelengths here that I am not able to cause my thoughts to be understood. It really doesn't matter what "epigenetics" are. They are not "sin." If you have a freckle on your face, it is not "sin." Even if it is melanoma, it is not "sin." Jesus died. If death is sin, He sinned. If the DNA have sin, He had it. If the pathways are present in the DNA, how did they get there?

When Jesus spoke the parable of the field being sown with tares, He was not referring to DNA. He was referring to people. The "wheat" represented the righteous. The "tares" represent the wicked. Righteous people don't have a "righteous gene," and wicked people don't have a "wicked gene." There is no such thing. They both have a choice. Character is built upon choices--lots of them. Character is NOT built upon genes.

In fact, if you want to say that the genes transmit sin and/or character, then I think you might be in agreement with published studies against the black people. They have a statistically high murder rate. They consistently perpetrate above-average rates of violent crime. I could go on...but this would be racist. If one race had more "sin" than another because of their DNA, it would seem that not all had a fair chance of redemption. Some had an advantage over others.

You see, to believe that sin is in the DNA opens up a huge can of worms. I don't believe that sin can be inherent to the DNA. Sin's effects, yes. Sin itself, not at all.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I have often thought how interesting it is that in 1888 the message of righteousness by faith was introduced to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and yet we still forget all about that doctrine - especially in our definition of sin.

Sin is an addiction?

How can we be addicted to having other God's before the creator?

"Satan Cannot Enter the Mind Without Our Consent—We should present before the people the fact that God has provided that we shall not be tempted above what we are able to bear, but that with every temptation He will make a way of escape. If we live wholly for God, we shall not allow the mind to indulge in selfish imaginings. {AH 402.1}
If there is any way by which Satan can gain access to the mind, he will sow his tares and cause them to grow until they will yield an abundant harvest. In no case can Satan obtain dominion over the thoughts, words, and actions, unless we voluntarily open the door and invite him to enter. He will then come in and, by catching away the good seed sown in the heart, make of none effect the truth.7 {AH 402.2}

How does this fit with your understanding APL? It doesn't.

We are born with an unsanctified mind and because it is rare to have the influence of sanctified parents, the ultra majority of children have no restraint on the carnal temptations from Satan. Even if we do have sanctified parents the odds of our willingness to withstand temptation is built around our individual likes and dislikes. We chose our own path.

Jesus had the DNA of a descendant of Adam, yet He was also fully God. He overcame as a man and grants others to sit on His throne if we overcome through His strength.

APL, in the name of Jesus and in great angst I wish to ask you something. Are you a believer in the Spirit of Prophecy, that the SDA church is from God? Or are you here to fight against our beliefs?

Much of what you say is mixed with worldly influence and sophistry. Are you a Seventh Day Adventist?

I work with people with severe mental "disabilities" but most of them are the most loving people you would ever meet. They are not encumbered by the lusts of life nearly as much as the "beautiful" children of our world. They have a much lower level of temptations that they can give in to because of their dependence on others.

Parents with children of high needs also seem to be more grounded.

I think that God allows all of the illness, mutations and deformities that Satan has brought into our world as a way to humble us while stuck in this world of pain, so we can see the real picture in life.

I was born to beautiful parents, as rebellious as they come. My dad was the family hope, born to a war hero and beautiful mother, very strong and tall, he rebelled and became a biker. He ran away with my 16 year old beauty queen mother and started his own life as a 1% er. If anyone knows what this is, you know what I mean. He later became a 32nd degree Mason. I was born into this world of popularity and sin, encouraged to become a rock star.

Because of his natural abilities my dad designed his own world in rebellion to anything from God.

He built a life of money and partying and everyone loved him, the life of the party. But after I came through that influence and became lover of lust myself, to be humbled and see life for what God intended, it sure is a completely different world. God has given me this testimony.

Without God intervening in my life I would probably be dead by now. I would say 50% of the people I sinned with in my past life are dead, and that is a very high ratio when you consider I'm not yet 50.

I am being shown the true meaning of life through Christ, and because of this I am rejected as a son. Considered to be a bummer by their way of life. My dad has more respect for my brother who has spent 16 years in prison than he does for me.

I praise God for humbling me. But I do not blame Him for what I went through. It was not because I was born defective, but by way of the blessings God gave me that I abused myself to became such a sinner.

Sodom was an "easy" place of living. I was born in Sodom, but God called me out.

Sin is an act. It is a transgression of the law, whether one is aware of the law or not. Transgressing the law equals "sin."

Is thinking an act? One does not have to DO anything to sin, correct?

But DNA is not an act. DNA is a thing. DNA can be no more sinful than can water, formaldehyde, or sand. DNA contains information for how to make your arm. Is your arm "sinful?" If the DNA contains "sin," then your entire body is "sin." You cannot choose to have "holy flesh," so you would be impossibly incarcerated in a sinful condition with no hope of escape this side of the second advent.

Is it not the DNA per se which is sinful. It is the information that has been encoded in the DNA that is sinful. The paradigm still holds, and you can not change one jot or tittle of the code that God has written. His works are perfect. But we know the information in the DNA is not perfect. Please give me a scientific explanation of how that happened. Name me one useful virus. Did God create viruses?

It seems we are on such different wavelengths here that I am not able to cause my thoughts to be understood. It really doesn't matter what "epigenetics" are. They are not "sin." If you have a freckle on your face, it is not "sin." Even if it is melanoma, it is not "sin." Jesus died. If death is sin, He sinned. If the DNA have sin, He had it. If the pathways are present in the DNA, how did they get there?
I
Is Melanoma good or evil? Melanoma is 100% mobile genetic element driven.
Does DNA change? Oh yeah.
Again - a logic problem. Death is not sin. Death is caused by sin. Christ could be make to be sin. Sin is what killed Jesus. But He was not a sinner in that fact he "never participated in its sin". Thus also He could be resurrected from the second death which He experiences. If Christ paid the legal penalty of sin which is the second death, then how could He be resurrected?

Jesus died. He carried our sin in His body on the tree, 1 Peter 2:24. He was made to be sin for us, 2 Corinthians 5:21. EGW - Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed.--The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874. In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. {5BC 1131.3} Look at the grammer on how these quotations are put together. He took on the sin of the world, but never participated in it.

When Jesus spoke the parable of the field being sown with tares, He was not referring to DNA. He was referring to people. The "wheat" represented the righteous. The "tares" represent the wicked. Righteous people don't have a "righteous gene," and wicked people don't have a "wicked gene." There is no such thing. They both have a choice. Character is built upon choices--lots of them. Character is NOT built upon genes.

So EGW is wrong.
Selfishness is inwrought in our very being. It has come to us as an inheritance, and has been cherished by many as a precious treasure. {HS 138.7}
By inheritance and example the sons become partakers of the father's sin. Wrong tendencies, perverted appetites, and debased morals, as well as physical disease and degeneracy, are transmitted as a legacy from father to son, to the third and fourth generation. This fearful truth should have a solemn power to restrain men from following a course of sin. {PP 306.3}
These dear children received from Adam an inheritance of disobedience, of guilt and death. The Lord has given to the world Jesus Christ, and His work was to restore to the world the moral image of God in man, and to reshape the character. {13MR 14.1}

In fact, if you want to say that the genes transmit sin and/or character, then I think you might be in agreement with published studies against the black people. They have a statistically high murder rate. They consistently perpetrate above-average rates of violent crime. I could go on...but this would be racist. If one race had more "sin" than another because of their DNA, it would seem that not all had a fair chance of redemption. Some had an advantage over others.

You continually ignore the quotes. Sin is inherited and cultivated.

You see, to believe that sin is in the DNA opens up a huge can of worms. I don't believe that sin can be inherent to the DNA. Sin's effects, yes. Sin itself, not at all.

Could you please explain how sin affects all creation. How is it all creation groans together?

Here are just a couple of papers that look at mobile genetic elements and disease. Note the dates of publication. This stuff is recent. Textbook are usually many years behind the front edge of science.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/18/3/343.long
http://genomemedicine.com/content/1/10/97#B7
http://www.springerlink.com/content/qrh8830004g47401/

A whole list of disease are caused by these mobile genetic elements. Haemophilia, A and B, colon cancer, breast cancer, muscular dystrophy (CNV), down's syndrome, just to name a few. I can give you hundreds more. What is also interesting in this, is the body is constantly trying to suppress and remove the mobile genetic elements. From one article's conclusion, it says, "The finding of widespread examples of mobile elements contributing to disease, as well as additional avenues for introducing damage to the host genome, has generated some level of concern for the role of mobile elements in human health. Such concern provides incentive for a more thorough exploration of the impact of these elements on somatic cells, as opposed to simply focusing on the germline activities that contribute to their evolution. The wide range of mechanisms by which the host limits mobile-element activity strongly suggests the importance of repressing mobile elements. " If this stuff was what God created originally, then why is the body constantly trying to get rid of it? Genesis 3:15.

Yes, I am challenging the concepts of sin and salvation. Sin is more that a simple outward breaking the rules. It is real, and it is physical. It is an informational problem that has been placed into our DNA. And to remove it is a complex process, and I will go out further on my limb, vastly more complex then the original creation.

• He would have us comprehend something of his love in giving his Son to die that he might counteract evil, remove the defiling stains of sin from the workmanship of God, and re-instate the lost, elevating and ennobling the soul to its original purity through Christ's imputed righteousness. {RH, November 8, 1892 par. 2}

James - if fits perfectly what how I see things.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin.

This is why me, coming from a family of alcoholics, will not try alcohol. Opening that door would be a disaster.

Excellent points. Thank you.

The truth about justification by faith is essential to our salvation - especially to our peace of mind. Jesus must justify pardoning and saving penitent sinners. Why? Because law and justice demand death for sin.

DNA determines how people turn out - what they look like, their gifts and talents, personality, tendencies, predispositions, etc. The fact all of us are conceived and born predisposed to sinning is evidence our DNA is faulty and at fault. People sin because they are born predisposed. They sin by default. They cannot not sin. Rebirth is necessary to cease sinning. Rebirth, however, does not eliminate or eradicate the sinful tendencies we were born with and cultivated. Sinful flesh remains to tempt us from within to sin. It is not a sin to be tempted. We are not guilty of sinning because we have sinful tendencies or because our sinful flesh tempts us to be unlike Jesus.

APL,

We may not be able to agree. You believe that there is a "character DNA." I don't. You may even believe that there is a "soul DNA."

Your rigidity in understanding Mrs. White contributes to your view. When she says we "inherit" the sins of the fathers, you see only one possibility. I don't.

Let's, see...suppose my father were filthy rich, and I inherited his money. Would that make the money to be "sin?" So there are many ways of "inheriting" things.

Here's another one: suppose my father had brown eyes, and I inherited brown eyes, would that make my brown eyes to be "sin?"

(I'm not saying that you are saying these things, I'm only asking these questions to get the thought processes going.)

Here's another one: Suppose my father owned a tavern which I inherited. Would that mean the tavern was encoded in my DNA?

Here's another: Suppose my mother enjoyed listening to rock music during her pregnancy with me...and I inherited a taste for that music. Would that mean that the music were encoded in my DNA? When she bequeaths me her rock albums, will those join my DNA?

All of these questions are to help illustrate the point that there are ways to "inherit" that have nothing to do with DNA. Even "sin" can be inherited in myriad ways, none of them involving the DNA.

Regarding thoughts and actions, let me ask a question: Is "guarding" an action?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

APL,

We may not be able to agree. You believe that there is a "character DNA." I don't. You may even believe that there is a "soul DNA."

We chose, this is enforced by the DNA. Epigenetic changes occur which feeds back and encourages our behavior. "Soul DNA" - now you are being inflammatory.

Your rigidity in understanding Mrs. White contributes to your view. When she says we "inherit" the sins of the fathers, you see only one possibility. I don't.

Actually, I think I'm the one that is being more open and less rigid. You deny genetic inheritance. I acknowledge culture. As she says, "inherited and cultivated tendancies to evil".

Let's, see...suppose my father were filthy rich, and I inherited his money. Would that make the money to be "sin?" So there are many ways of "inheriting" things.

You are speaking culture here, not biology.

Here's another one: suppose my father had brown eyes, and I inherited brown eyes, would that make my brown eyes to be "sin?"

Bad logic. Are you doing this intentionally?

(I'm not saying that you are saying these things, I'm only asking these questions to get the thought processes going.)

After all that has said, it is clear that we are not going to get anything going. You are closed to the ideas I see.

Here's another one: Suppose my father owned a tavern which I inherited. Would that mean the tavern was encoded in my DNA?

Bad logic and again in flammatory.

Here's another: Suppose my mother enjoyed listening to rock music during her pregnancy with me...and I inherited a taste for that music. Would that mean that the music were encoded in my DNA? When she bequeaths me her rock albums, will those join my DNA?

Now how would this trait be passed on. For indeed, the character of the mother is reflected in the character of child, if you believe EGW. Can you give me a biological reason why this happens? I can, but can you?

All of these questions are to help illustrate the point that there are ways to "inherit" that have nothing to do with DNA. Even "sin" can be inherited in myriad ways, none of them involving the DNA.

See - I acknowledge culture. You deny DNA inheritance. And you call me the rigid one. :-)

I agree with you to the point where you say the rebirth does not eliminate sinful tendencies. 1 John 3:8-9 He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.

This does not mean the sinful flesh is gone, that will not happen until the second coming. But the tendencies to sin can be silenced. Jesus before the cross had silenced all the temptations the devil could throw at him. John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world comes, and has nothing in me. David's prayer was for this. Psalms 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. The New Covenant is this: Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, said the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Yes, the more I read the Bible, the more I take it literally. It is a fantastic science book. That claim will get scoffs from many, even good SDAs. God will write His laws on our inward parts.

This is not culture alone. This is real, and biological. And yes, it is encoded in the DNA's epigenome.

Adam and Eve were tempted in Eden. They were sinless. Jesus was tempted on the cross. Evil angels will tempt the 144,000 after probation closes. It is not a sin to be tempted. Sinful flesh tempting us from within is no different than everything that temps us from without. While abiding in Jesus all temptations are hideous and hateful and are resisted unto the honor and glory of God our Father.

And I find it enlightening to read your personal experience as you have registered it in your book, Mike.

For centuries, basing our knowledge on history, the people of Iceland were convinced their main ancestors were the pagan vikings who came to Iceland in the ninth century AD. Recent DNA tests have shown that there is about as much irish Christian blood in our veins. The DNA does not indicate how much paganism er Christianity is present, only the nationality. The religion we know from history. There was a disposition to accept the Christian faith, but that may have come through the testimony of the Irish Christians, whose pretense we are discovering more and more.

It seems very difficult to trace sin through through. But do we need any such devise?

How and why does Jesus define sin as originating in the thoughts?

Which of the 10 commandments tells us that sin is in our thoughts? Applying the definition of Jesus does that apply to all of the ten commandments?

What does this mean for our salvation?

Thank you, Pastor. It warms my heart. Happy Thanksgiving.

Interesting about the DNA and Iceland. Good point. No, it doesn't really matter if we can trace sin through and through; the main thing is to know we are "by nature the children of wrath". We desperately need to be born again and to abide in Jesus. All sins break all law. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." One God, one law.

Yes, it is what is in the mind that is sin. It is not the outward acts. The outward acts are just sin played out. So then, how is it that sin causes death of all living things? Now are thoughts generated? Are thoughts dependent on biological, physiological systems? If you take "mind altering drugs", what happens to the thought patterns? If you remove part of the brain, say a frontal lobotomy (these experiments have been done), your personality and character change. The circuitry of the brain is based on physiologic receptors which are all coded for in the DNA. Study, thought, mental exercise, physical exercise, diet, all affect the physiology, and affect DNA gene expression. If you look at the locations in the DNA where much of the added DNA is located, you find it around genes that code for the CNS. Why? Satan was not out to kill us, he was out to take us captive. EGW:By nature we are alienated from God. The Holy Spirit describes our condition in such words as these: "Dead in trespasses and sins;" "the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint;" "no soundness in it." We are held fast in the snare of Satan, "taken captive by him at his will." Ephesians 2:1; Isaiah 1:5, 6; 2 Timothy 2:26. God desires to heal us, to set us free. But since this requires an entire transformation, a renewing of our whole nature, we must yield ourselves wholly to Him. {SC 43.2} The warfare against self is the greatest battle that was ever fought. The yielding of self, surrendering all to the will of God, requires a struggle; but the soul must submit to God before it can be renewed in holiness. {SC 43.3}

As for the 10 commandments, which one is hallmark signature coded for in our DNA? I believe there is one. One that is the mark of the Creator. And not only in the DNA of humans, but all life. Which one is it?

WOW!

You skipped over what I asked earlier. Are you a Seventh Day Adventist? Do you belong to our church? YES/ NO?

Yes I am. Most look at sin as a breaking of the rules, and the solution is a legal payment of the penalty. Sin is not a legal problem. It is a real problem. Legal rules, while they may be based on good reasoning, are arbitrary. A speed limit of 55 MPH is arbitrary. It may be a good rule, but it is arbitrary. Is 56 MPH better, or 54 MPH? The 10 Commandments are not arbitrary. They are descriptive. "God's law is written by His own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every faculty which has been entrusted to man." This is a literal statement. Do you believe it is literal? Sin is transgression of the law. It is a transgression of our very makeup. And it affects all living things.

I am not saved by being or not being a Seventh Day Adventist[sic]. I'm saved by Jesus Christ. Not one in 20, not one in 100 who claim to be Seventh-day Adventists are ready to meet their creator.

We have little enough of Christ's character. We need it all through our ranks, We must reveal that love which dwelt in Jesus. Then we shall keep the commandment [that we love one another], which not one in a hundred of those who claim to believe the truth for this time are keeping. . . . {7MR 389.3}

Nice response, APL. Very well said.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I appreciate you emphasizing the fact sin is systemic. As you say, it impacts every fiber of our person and planet. However, I don't understand why you work so hard to refute the fact Jesus will resurrect and punish unsaved sinners with fire. When Jesus "commanded" Moses to kill the blasphemer (Lev 24) and the Sabbath-breaker (Num 15) it was perfectly consistent with law and justice. Their sin did not cause stones to kill them. Their death was the result of capital punishment - not natural law.

What to know a good way to punish with fire?

• Romans 12:19-21 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, said the Lord. 20 Therefore if your enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head. 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

The ministration of the law under Moses was stoning for the willful transgressor. Under Jesus, there is mercy. Look at the women taken in adultery, in the very act, what did Jesus say? Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone, and to the women, I do not condemn you, go and sin no more. Christ is long suffering, with tender mercy. Israel was a not only a religion but a nation. We have nations today, with governments appointed to keep order. It is ideal? No. But are the nations of the world reflective of how God runs His universe? We have to ask the question, why was sin permitted? If the natural consequences of sin had played out, then Satan's charges may have appeared to be right, and people would have served God from fear. (See Patriarchs and Prophets, Chapter 1, and The Great Controversy chapter 29)

• The law of God is immutable. Were it otherwise, no confidence could be placed in his government. God rules the world in omnipotence, and all that His love inspires He will execute. He who rules the world in wisdom and love is a God who changes not. He does not abolish today that which He enforced yesterday. {RH, June 4, 1901 par. 7}
  Through all the ages Satan's work has been the same, -- to make of none effect the law of God. He has infatuated men and women, leading them to mistake darkness for light, and error for truth. He began this work in heaven, and ever since, he has been trying to deceive. He tells men and women that God has abrogated all law, and will now open the gates of heaven to transgressors. He declares that his expulsion from heaven was a severe and uncalled-for action, and that those he led in rebellion may now enter into heaven; for his effort to abrogate the law has been successful, and God's government has been changed. But were this so, Satan would have done on earth that which he attempted to do in heaven, and he would therefore be entitled to the throne of heaven as the chief ruler. {RH, June 4, 1901 par. 8}
  Those who accept Satan's reasoning are terribly deceived. They accept a position which has no true foundation. God is unchangeable. He is satisfied with nothing short of perfect obedience. Perfection is the only title which will gain admittance to heaven. The law is the only standard of character. {RH, June 4, 1901 par. 9}

So if perfection is the ONLY title to gain admittance to heaven, how is a LEGAL solution to the provide this perfection? It does not. Only by applying the blood of Christ is perfection obtained. Romans 5:9 "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Only in trusting in God and the healing He provides can we be saved. And it will require effort and battle against self on our part. BTW - How many can read this last verse and accept it as it reads? EGW:"If men would but take the Bible as it reads, ... {GC 598.3}" This genomic model explains much to my mind.

I did not just think one day, hm, how can I fit genetics into the Bible? No, it just fell out of my studies of science and the Bible, and by a pointing out of key elements by one who is much more versed in both Science and the Bible than I. The science fits all the verses which were hard to understand. Even on the subject of circumcision! MM, can you give a clear, logical, non-arbitrary reason for circumcision? Or course circumcision by itself means nothing, but why was it chosen as a sign?

Thou shalt not covet. That only happens in the thoughts.

The rest of them also reach into our thoughts, even though many try to comply with them by outward behavior.

You are correct Asygo, but Jesus also said "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:28

"When the thought of evil is loved and cherished, however secretly, said Jesus, it shows that sin still reigns in the heart. The soul is still in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. He who finds pleasure in dwelling upon scenes of impurity, who indulges the evil thought, the lustful look, may behold in the open sin, with its burden of shame and heart-breaking grief, the true nature of the evil which he has hidden in the chambers of the soul. The season of temptation, under which, it may be, one falls into grievous sin, does not create the evil that is revealed, but only develops or makes manifest that which was hidden and latent in the heart. As a man “thinketh in his heart, so is he;” for out of the heart “are the issues of life.” Proverbs 23:7; 4:23. {MB 60.1}

So sin is not only an act, but it is a state of mind. We cut ourselves off from righteousness in order to sin in our hearts, and once the seed has taken root it leads to open rebellion. When you willingly fantasize about sin, it is counted as sin.

This does not include the thought bombs that Satan throws at us, trying to get us to THINK you have sinned. So it is important to know where the cut off point is. This is essential to knowing what is from God and what is from Satan.

Always fall to the word of God when thoughts arise. This our safe haven.

To refresh your memory, here's a little exchange we had regarding the need for Jesus to die on the cross:

Originally Posted By: APL

Originally Posted By: asygo

Are you saying that if Jesus did not come and die on the cross, He would not have been able to heal a broken leg? Or a palsied hand? Or a broken neck?

The physical ailments are a consequence of sin. Are you saying they are not? A dog getting cancer is a consequence of sin. Are you saying it is not?

We were talking about Jesus dying on the cross, and you brought up dog cancer.

I'm not being inflammatory at all. Just trying to express what I think you are saying. If you spoke clearly, there wouldn't be an issue.


Let me refresh your memory again.

Originally Posted By: asygo

Originally Posted By: APL

Enoch is saved the same way we are, and needed the same sacrifice we needed.

Good. We agree on that.

That was easy. Some things that seem to need clarification turn out to be clear after all.

But there's something that is still unclear with you. I asked you this a while back, but you still have not answered. Here it is again: Was Enoch healed, nearly 4,000 years before Jesus died on the cross?

But there was a question that came before that, which you never answered clearly: Did Enoch need Christ's death on the cross in order to be regenerated?

My answer is clear, short, to the point: Yes!

What is your answer? Can you do it in 3 letters or less?

Wholly agree.

Enoch is saved the same way you and I are saved. Are we saved by Christ' death or His life? Answer - we are saved by His life. We are reconciled by His death. We are saved by His life. Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

1 Corinthians 15:12-13 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

1 Corinthians 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

And this one is key:
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

I asked for yes or no, and you give a long answer that gave neither yes nor no. Don't be surprised if you are misunderstood, since you seem to go out of your way to be opaque.

Let me try again: Did Enoch need Christ's death in order to be regenerated?

Are you sure you guys are in agreement? Arnold, you believe we are guilty and condemned because "our fallen nature" tempts us from within to be unlike Jesus - even if we abide in Jesus and refuse to cherish or act them out. James, you believe we are guiltless if we abide in Jesus and refuse to cherish or act them out. The difference has to do with 1) Sin as a state of mind (guilty because we cherish sin), and 2) Sin as a state of being (guilty because our fallen nature tempts us from within).

PS - Everyone agrees sin is also a state of doing.

Most definitely yes!

"To Walk With God—The father ... will bind his children to the throne of God by living faith. Distrusting his own strength, he hangs his helpless soul on Jesus and takes hold of the strength of the Most High. Brethren, pray at home, in your family, night and morning; pray earnestly in your closet; and while engaged in your daily labor, lift up the soul to God in prayer. It was thus that Enoch walked with God. The silent, fervent prayer of the soul will rise like holy incense to the throne of grace and will be as acceptable to God as if offered in the sanctuary. To all who thus seek Him, Christ becomes a present help in time of need. They will be strong in the day of trial.8 {AH 212.4}



Mountain man, this would be predicated on what is meant by the term "in Jesus". I too believe we come from a fallen condition so the old man is continually trying to rear his ugly head through the temptations of Satan.

I agree with you Mt Man that being "In Christ" we do not sin, but being "in Christ" depends upon remaining faithful daily and truly repenting if we do fall to get back "in Christ". In other words we are not in Christ if we are sinning. There is a break, which is what repentance resolves. We do not need to repent if we have not sinned since being forgiven in the past. Forgiveness covers our PAST sins not the future.

It is when we give in to lust of the flesh first in thought then in actions that our connection with God is broken and we are overcome by temptation. Asygo puts it into words differently and if I am off on his intent please forgive, but I think he and I are in agreement here.

It may be through this example that you two will understand each others intent on the subject better. And every brother has the right to come to a better conclusion through acknowledging the truth of a subject viewed from a different angle.

Enoch, Moses and Elijah needed Christ's death and life.

Since Jesus didn't die on the cross until years later, how did it help them regenerate?

Did they need the cross to be saved?

Good. We agree that Enoch needed Christ's death.

But that was not quite my question. Did Enoch need Christ's death in order to be regenerated? IOW, if Jesus lived His perfect life, then while hanging on the cross, just before dying, He decided to just go back to heaven, could Enoch have been regenerated?

"Enoch, Moses and Elijah needed Christ's death and life." How did it help them regenerate?

We are guilty and condemned, not because our nature is fallen, but because our nature is depraved. That depraved nature cannot be controlled by human power. Only in Christ can we hope to control it.

But when a person is in Christ, does that mean that his nature is no longer depraved? It is very likely to still be depraved. Does that mean that his depraved nature is no longer condemned? God still condemns it. Does that mean a person in Christ is condemned by God? No, it does not. How? Because when a person is in Christ, God looks at Christ's holiness, not the person's depravity.

So is that person guilty for being depraved? Yes. But in Christ, he is covered by Christ's holiness.

What does the mind have to do with it? What if we choose to not be depraved? What if we decide very strongly that we are no longer depraved? What if we choose to think we are no longer depraved? Does that cause the depravity to go away?

Do we incur guilt and condemnation because our nature is fallen and depraved even while we are abiding in Jesus and controlling it?


Does the depravity go away when the Father chooses not to see it? Does our fallen nature cease being depraved when the Father chooses to ignore it?

This is the wonderful power of the WORD.

Have you seen Jesus die on the cross in person? No. but you know it existed.

The same "faith" in the life of Jesus saved those who believed God's word before He came from heaven.

Adam was saved by belief in sacrificing according to the guidelines told him through angels and imagining the future fulfillment. It was revealed through the word of God.

There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Even the vilest sinner is not condemned if he is in Christ Jesus. I'll say again what I said last time: Because when a person is in Christ, God looks at Christ's holiness, not the person's depravity.

So, no, one abiding in Jesus is not condemned. But it is not because he is holy, but because Jesus is holy. The depravity still brings guilt and condemnation, but Jesus takes it all away.

It's still there, but it is rendered powerless by Christ's righteousness. We are not to worry about what God thinks of us, but what He thinks of Christ.

Just to be clear - so, because we have a fallen, depraved nature we are guilty and condemned, even if we do not cherish it or act it out; if we are abiding in Jesus the Father ignores our guilt and condemnation.

What effect does our ignored depravity, guilt, and condemnation have on the fruits of the Spirit we experience while abiding in Jesus? Does it stain them with sin and selfishness? Or, do they flow from us pure and holy and undefiled? Is "righteousness and true holiness" real or forensic, imparted or imputed?

What do you mean by "regenerated". You and MM are the ones that have used the term, applying it to me. But looking back through this thread, I do not that I used it.

What I have been talking about is salvation. Most here is appears that salvation is a legal issue. I don't. I see salvation as a real issue, sin as a real problem.

Yes, sin is a real problem. The solution must also be real. People must "cease to do evil; learn to do well." Paul wrote, "According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost". "Regeneration is the only path by which we can enter the city of God."


Again, "without regeneration through faith in His blood, there is no remission of sins". In response to, "Did Enoch need Christ's death in order to be regenerated?" you wrote, "Enoch, Moses and Elijah needed Christ's death and life." Please explain.

asygo: I asked for yes or no, and you give a long answer that gave neither yes nor no. Don't be surprised if you are misunderstood, since you seem to go out of your way to be opaque.

Let me try again: Did Enoch need Christ's death in order to be regenerated?

APL: Enoch, Moses and Elijah needed Christ's death and life.

asygo: Good. We agree that Enoch needed Christ's death.

But that was not quite my question. Did Enoch need Christ's death in order to be regenerated? IOW, if Jesus lived His perfect life, then while hanging on the cross, just before dying, He decided to just go back to heaven, could Enoch have been regenerated?

APL: What do you mean by "regenerated". You and MM are the ones that have used the term, applying it to me. But looking back through this thread, I do not that I used it.

From post#146984 - 11/14/12 08:55 PM:

Originally Posted By: APL

This required a "RENEWING OF OUR WHOLE NATURE". This is a healing process, not a legal process. The only way we can be saved, is if we are born again, recreated. Then, and only then is the law satisfied. The regeneration can only be done by Christ. It took His death on the cross to achieve this.

Whatever you meant by "regeneration" in that quote, that's what I mean. Did Enoch need Christ's death in order to be regenerated in whatever sense you meant it in that quote?


That's what I'm trying to figure out about your belief. Did Enoch, 4,000 before Jesus came, lived, and died as a man, experience the salvation you are talking about?

Almost. God doesn't ignore them, He disposes of them. God placed them on Jesus our Substitute, and they will be disposed of along with all the other sins in the sanctuary. We simply need to accept His propitiation.


Passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God. They are fig leaves, filthy rags compared to Christ's robe of righteousness.


Both. But what God counts in the judgment of those who are in Jesus is not what they have done, or even what He has done in and through them. What counts is what God did in and through Jesus, and accepted by His people as a gift.

What is the difference between 1) "It's still there," and 2) "He disposes of them"?


So, the fruit of abiding in Jesus is defiled with sin and selfishness and the Father disposes of them? What's left to investigate and examine in judgment?


If defiled and disposed of, in what sense is the fruit of abiding in Jesus "righteousness and true holiness" imparted and real?

Also, since our words and works justify us in judgment (our character determines out eternal destiny) in what sense do you mean they will not count?

"It's still there" and "He disposes of them" are independent concepts. It's like asking what's the difference between a manual transmission and a flyswatter.

What you're probably wondering about is what's the difference between "He ignores them" and "He disposes of them." It's the same difference as trash day at your house. You roll out your trash the night before. If you walk out the next morning early enough, it's still there. When you think about how the trash collector relates to your trash, is there a difference between "he ignores it" and "he disposes of it"? That's the difference.

What is the difference between a "fallen nature" and "depraved nature"?

A fallen nature is one that is damaged in some way compared to the original. So, one with damaged DNA is fallen. So is one with malfunctioning neurons.

A depraved nature is a type of fallen nature that suffers from moral damage. For example, a nature that wants to please self at the expense of all others is depraved. So is one that prefers evil over good.

Two metaphors. Nice job. Let's go with trash. So, the fruit of abiding in Jesus is trash. We toss it curbside and it is hauled to the landfill. Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Does the trash collector discern our character based on our trash? Does he shift gears with a flyswatter?

Here's how that works. Let's say you want to give your trash collector a gift - the best fruits from your garden. So you put it in the nicest basket you can find, then insert carefully in the center of your trash bin so he can get it when he picks it up.

That's your offering to God. The fruit itself maybe be nice, but the packaging is garbage.

When we do our best, God accepts that as our best offering. But not because it is good enough. It's good enough only because Jesus makes up for the deficiency. That's what happens when we carefully place our nicest fruit basket in our garbage.

But if you just toss it to the curb, that's not your best. That will definitely not be good enough.

I love the stories of people laying the sick in the path of Paul, how just by his shadow passing over the sick they were healed by faith. Yet he was not healed for his thorn in his side.

So the inevitable question is why was Paul not healed? When I am weak He is strong.

The blind man was born blind for the glory of God. There are several stories like that which show a different dimension of the reason for the ills of life.

I also marvel at the stories where not even Jesus could do any miracles to make people whole by their lack of faith.

Mark 6:4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.

Good fruit, bad package - made acceptable to the Father by the righteousness of Jesus. The fruit of abiding in Jesus is a combination of the good, bad, and ugly. Does any of this make any difference when we "visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction"?

PS - I don't understand the whole thing about "the clamors of our fallen nature" (DA 122) staining the fruit the Holy Spirit empowers us to experience. Is it the direct result of us actually knowingly or unknowingly committing sin (cherishing, thinking, speaking, acting selfishly) that causes the stain? Or, is the unholy clamoring of sinful flesh a type of sinning separate and distinctly different from the sinning we ourselves do? If we ourselves cause the stain, Jesus cannot simply make it acceptable to the Father. If the clamoring of sinful flesh causes the stain, Jesus cannot count us guilty of wrongdoing.

MM, you're bringing all that schizophrenic, "I'm not sinning, it's my flesh that is sinning" stuff that we were talking about in your "concerns" thread. I don't want to derail this thread into that topic. I'll only talk about it as it relates to the moral influence vs penal substitution vs healing issue.

You're still not getting what I'm saying. The fruit of abiding in Jesus is all good. The bad and the ugly is all us. When you put them together is when you get the good, the bad, and the ugly. You keep getting confused on that.


Depends what you mean. Through mortal eyes, it all looks the same. When abiding in Jesus, the fleshly lusts which war against the soul are overridden by His Spirit.

But through immortal eyes, which can read the heart, the evils in the heart are as clear as the outward appearance.

1) "A fallen nature is one that is damaged compared with the original." OK - I can accept that.

2) "A depraved nature is a type of fallen nature that suffers from moral damage." So a depraved nature is a subset of our fallen nature? Is that what you are saying?

Is there a "soul" which is separate from the body? No. Man is a whole. The mind is intimately dependent on the body. MM pointed out above a perfect quote of EGW on this from The Desire of Ages, " In our own strength it is impossible for us to deny the clamors of our fallen nature. {DA 122.3} This is exactly right, and what science is showing us. Our the physical and the moral are tightly woven together. And Christ's mission was to restore man: "Our Lord Jesus Christ came to this world as the unwearied servant of man's necessity. He "took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses," that He might minister to every need of humanity. Matthew 8:17. The burden of disease and wretchedness and sin He came to remove. It was His mission to bring to men complete restoration; He came to give them health and peace and perfection of character. {MH 17.1}" How are all the processes of the body controlled? What is the control system that contains all the information for the building up of the body, and controlling all of its chemical processes? It is the genome. Look at the expanded quote from the DA quote above:

• In our own strength it is impossible for us to deny the clamors of our fallen nature. Through this channel Satan will bring temptation upon us. Christ knew that the enemy would come to every human being, to take advantage of hereditary weakness, and by his false insinuations to ensnare all whose trust is not in God. And by passing over the ground which man must travel, our Lord has prepared the way for us to overcome. It is not His will that we should be placed at a disadvantage in the conflict with Satan. He would not have us intimidated and discouraged by the assaults of the serpent. "Be of good cheer," He says; "I have overcome the world." John 16:33. {DA 122.3}

Hereditary weakness - this can be nothing less that the genome. It has to be. And there is abundant science to back this up. A couple of examples, using a buccal swab, one can predict if a person will be selfish or altruistic with 75-80% accuracy, based on alleles that code for oxytocin receptors in the brain. Note, they are not 100%. The genetics gives us the predisposition, they do not force us. But through our fallen nature, Satan works to tempt us. This is just one example. There are many more.

This is not a legal problem. It is a real problem. It is physical. The punishment is not a legally imposed penalty. There is cause and effect.

• There is a divinely appointed connection between sin and disease. No physician can practice for a month without seeing this illustrated. He may ignore the fact; his mind may be so occupied with other matters that his attention will not be called to it; but if he will be observing and honest he cannot help acknowledging that sin and disease bear to each other the relationship of cause and effect. The physician should be quick to see this and to act accordingly. When he has gained the confidence of the afflicted by relieving their sufferings and bringing them back from the verge of the grave, he may teach them that disease is the result of sin and that it is the fallen foe who seeks to allure them to health-and-soul-destroying practices. He may impress their minds with the necessity of denying self and obeying the laws of life and health. In the minds of the young especially he may instill right principles. God loves His creatures with a love that is both tender and strong. He has established the laws of nature, but His laws are not arbitrary exactions. Every "Thou shalt not," whether in physical or moral law, contains or implies a promise. If it is obeyed, blessings will attend our steps; if it is disobeyed, the result is danger and unhappiness. The laws of God are designed to bring His people closer to Himself. He will save them from the evil and lead them to the good if they will be led, but force them He never will. We cannot discern God's plans, but we must trust Him and show our faith by our works. {5T 444.2}

God will NEVER force us to obey Him. How can we then say that the 2nd death is an execution, capital punishment? Is it not! Capital punishment is the ultimate exercise of force. The second death is the wages that SIN pays. Christ came to save us from our sins, not to condemn us. But die we will if we continue in sin, and we need to understand God's role in that death. And just look at the cross! Did the Father execute His son? NO.

Yes.


No, there is no soul which is separate from the body. However, we can be perfect even though our bodies are still damaged. Don't you agree?

Human nature is composed of three aspects: physical, mental, moral. Damage to any aspect = fallen. Damage to the moral = depraved. It is possible to be fallen but not depraved.


You have great faith in science. I know enough science to know that it cannot be completely trusted. It wasn't that long ago when all scientists believed that 186,000 mph + 186,000 mph = 372,000 mph. We now know that isn't quite true. Thousands of years of scientific knowledge tossed aside by a clerk at a patent office.

Just because something is hereditary doesn't mean it's the genome.

Weakness is hereditary.
The genome is hereditary.
Therefore, weakness is in the genome.

The logic is bad.

APL,

I answer your questions to make sure you know what I am saying, whether we agree or not. How about returning the favor? I'm waiting for a response to post #147651 (11/28/12 10:50 AM) quoted below:


Eagerly awaiting your reply.

Hey, I thought you didn't like it when I limited your limited your argument from "nature" to "moral nature" (see post #147036 - 11/16/12 03:09 PM). "Do unto others..." Jesus said.

Is a bullet that fatally wounds a man committing a sin? Is it evil?

How about the cactus that pierces a man's hand, leading to an infection? Or his eye, leading to blindness?

Perhaps we need to look into how closely man's condition is tied to the rest of the planet. Could it be that there is a vital, but still unknown, link that caused the entire planet to fall when Adam and Eve fell? Or maybe a cursed planet, with its dangerous animals and difficult-to-maintain foliage, is exactly what fallen man needs in order to regain his lost glory, so that's what God gave him? There may be truths out there that we haven't yet discovered. Hmmmm...

I answered this. Enoch needed more that Jesus' death so the answer is not yes or no. He needed Jesus death and life. If Christ was not raised, then the gospel would be moot. Enoch is saved the same way all of us are saved, but Jesus death and life. It was asked how this could be work given that Christ had not yet died. This would be limiting God to time. Something we have a hard time grasping.

Where exactly is the bad logic? Please tell me how we inherit traits from our father that are not in the genome. I'm not speaking about culture. There is education, but this is what EGW calls "cultivated" habits. She is clear and I agree, there are inherited and cultivated tendancies to sin. What does a child receive from his father that is not culture? He/She receives 23 chromosomes in a protein cap. No cell nucleus, no cytoplasm, no cellular organelles. 23 chromosomes, that's it. So, how else do we inherit traits? Please explain how heredity is not genetic.

• It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {DA 48.5}

Can you plainly say that EGW it not talking about genetics in this quote? If she is not talking about genetics, please identify what she is talking about. I anxiously await your reply.

Or maybe we are blind to what is right in front of our eyes.

The fallen world is a world full of sin. Did Got create the cactus with thorns? No. The thorns are the result of "Satan's ingenious methods of amalgamation". This quote of EGW is talking genetic engineering: DNA manipulation.

• Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge, which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this." [Matthew 13:27, 28.] All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {16MR 247.2}

How are thorns and are transmitted as an inheritance - genetics. It is really that hard to think that we receive tenancies to evil by genetics? After all, we are flesh and blood, ALL of which is coded in our DNA. The DNA is a fantastic information storage and transfer system. God has written his Law on every nerve, muscle and fiber of our being, quoting EGW. And again EGW, man was amalgamating man and beast, "genetic engineering", which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere.

Please read my post again. That was not my question this time.

So, while abiding in Jesus, good fruit and the evils of the heart combine?

After man sinned, the problem was both a relational (or healing) one and a legal one. God has always been willing to forgive man, but, in order to do so, God had two problems:
1- Leading man to repentance, and
2- Finding a way to forgive man without sacrificing the honor of His law
The cross accomplished both objectives.

Exactly!
Any "model" that tries to separate the two is a distortion.

I do not equate the healing with the relationship as you appear to do. They are separate. Sin is not merely a broken relationship. It is true, that Romans 2:4 ... the goodness of God leads you to repentance... There is reconciliation at the cross, Romans 5:10 ... we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son ... We are reconciled in that we see that God is not the executioner.

You point #2 is interesting in that you say God has always been willing to forgive, but somehow had to find a way to forgive? Again in this thread, there are 2 kinds of forgiveness in the NT, Charizomai, which is the typical kind of forgiveness we thing of, that that is God not holding anything against us. And Aphiemi - which is what God does in us, as in 1 John 1:9.

God did have to uphold His law. He did this at the cross, where He showed His son publicly dying, showing what the wages of sin is. And the reason we are saved is not because we are simply legally forgiven, it is because we are transformed. God and fix the problem of sin. It is real, and physical. EGW in the book Steps to Christ, Chapter 5, explains that we need a total transformation of the whole nature. Without that transformation, there is no salvation.

Both aspects are involved. You can't exclude the legal aspect from salvation, or pretend it doesn't exist. It does exist.

Indeed.

Sin is not a legal problem. It is a real problem. When you go to a physician, do you want to be legally pardoned, or do you want to be healed? You want the sin to be removed. This is not done legally. Or sure, the one removing it can have a legal right to do it, but the there is nothing legal about the process of removal.

"The very essence of the gospel is restoration, and the Saviour would have us bid the sick, the hopeless, and the afflicted take hold upon His strength. {DA 824.5}" That's pretty clear.

Sin is also a legal problem dealing with law.
It is God's law that was under attack when lucifer rebelled.

While restoration is very much a part of salvation, without the legal aspect of Christ's atoning sacrifice, our restoration could never erase even one sin.

Remember there are books in heaven.
The record of our sins are inscribed there.
It is with the blood of Christ that pardon is written beside confessed sins. And it is with His blood that those sins are blotted out of the books of heaven during the investigative judgment.

Of course there is a corresponding work in the lives of the sinner as well.

The two aspects cannot be separated.

God's law is not an enacted law. God's law is a design template of everything. Gravity is one of God's law. There is nothing legal about gravity. The law of Gravity is not proscriptive or prescriptive. It is descriptive. I see all aspects of God's law as descriptive.

Yes, there is God's law. Yes, there is an investigative judgment. If you have ever been to a medical grand rounds, this is very much like the investigative judgment. Yes, the case of the patient is reviewed. But even more importantly, those taking care of the patient are on review.

Book in heaven - - and just exactly what is blotted out? The acts of sin? Will Uriah not know who Solomon is? Of course Uriah will know who Solomon is and what happened with David and his wife. But these acts of sin are only the symptoms. They are not the real problem. The symptoms are not the disease. The real problem is the disease of sin. That will be eliminated, blotted out, wiped out. The righteous are "born again".

I now have a link to an audio recording which begins to explain my current view. If anyone wants to hear it, please send me a personal message.

Of course sin is a legal problem. You are referring to sin's effects, which of course aren't legal, but sin is, in itself, a legal problem, since sin is the transgression of the law. God is not just a physician. He is a Lawgiver, and a Judge, and a King. Besides, sin is not just a problem of the human race - sin is a universal problem. Unfallen beings don't need to be healed, but they are, like us, subjects of a kingdom governed by a moral law.

"The law requires righteousness,--a righteous life, a perfect character; and this man has not to give. He cannot meet the claims of God's holy law. But Christ, coming to the earth as man, lived a holy life, and developed a perfect character. These He offers as a free gift to all who will receive them. His life stands for the life of men. Thus they have remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. [legal aspect] More than this, Christ imbues men with the attributes of God. He builds up the human character after the similitude of the divine character" [healing aspect] {DA 762.2}

"Christ died because there was no other hope for the transgressor. He might try to keep God's law in the future; but the debt which he had incurred in the past remained, and the law must condemn him to death. Christ came to pay that debt for the sinner which it was impossible for him to pay for himself. Thus, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, sinful man was granted another trial." {FW 30.1} [legal aspect]

The Law of Gravity is not self acting. It can do nothing in and of itself. Jesus did not set it in motion and now it acts of its own accord. Nothing in nature is self-acting. None of the laws of nature act on their own. Each and every law of nature is dependent on Jesus to act each and every second of its existence. Water would not flow downhill, plants would not grow, flowers would not bloom, wind would not blow, the sun would not shine without Jesus causing them to do so.

The idea that Jesus works to prevent our sins from triggering the laws of nature and causing disease and destruction assumes the laws of nature are self-acting. The idea that the antediluvians sinned in a way that caused the forces of nature to release a worldwide deluge assumes the forces of nature are self-acting, as if they are capable of acting on their own, as if all Jesus did was stop working to hold them in check. Not so.

The idea that the sins of the wicked will cause fire to rain down on them at the end of time assumes the forces of nature are self-acting, as if Jesus need only step aside and allow fire to do its thing. Fire cannot do a single thing without Jesus causing it to happen. The fact fire will rain down and consume the ungodly in duration according to their sinfulness is proof Jesus is acting to thus employ the forces of nature to punish them.

In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. {Con 21.3}

Mere forgiveness of sin is not the sole result of the death of Jesus. He made the infinite sacrifice not only that sin might be removed, but that human nature might be restored, rebeautified, reconstructed from its ruins, and made fit for the presence of God. {3SM 154.1}

Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

Were there no justice, no penalty, there would be no stability to the government of God. It is the mingling of judgment and mercy that makes salvation full and complete. It is the blending of the two that leads us, as we view the world's Redeemer and the law of Jehovah, to exclaim, "Thy gentleness hath made me great" (2 Samuel 22:36). {AG 70}

Christ on the cross not only draws men to repentance toward God for the transgression of His law--for whom God pardons He first makes penitent--but Christ has satisfied Justice; He has proffered Himself as an atonement. {AG 153.2}

Through the cross, man was drawn to God, and God to man. Justice moved from its high and awful position, and the heavenly hosts, the armies of holiness, drew near to the cross, bowing with reverence; for at the cross justice was satisfied. Through the cross the sinner was drawn from the stronghold of sin, from the confederacy of evil, and at every approach to the cross his heart relents and in penitence he cries, "It was my sins that crucified the Son of God." At the cross he leaves his sins, and through the grace of Christ his character is transformed. {AG 74.5}

What's your respone to this? Do you or don't you agree?

Can't do a detailed analysis now, but the short answer is that your middle term is used improperly - it is not distributed.

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.

How does breaking God's law affect all creation? Please explain?

Breaking God's law does affect all creation. If the law is only a legal law, and enacted set of rules, then please explain how it affects all life. It affects all life because it is not a legal law, but a natural law. We tend to focus on the 10 commandments. But the 10C are descriptive of what a perfect life would be like. They are not proscriptive or prescriptive. They are descriptive. The Pharisees setup all kinds of legal rules to enforce compliance. Did it work? Nope.

• The man who attempts to keep the commandments of God from a sense of obligation merely--because he is required to do so [legally required to keey the law]--will never enter into the joy of obedience. He does not obey. {COL 97.3}

I provided this quote earlier I do believe which answers this question. But I will post it again.

• If those who speak so freely of perfection in the flesh, could see things in the true light, they would recoil with horror from their presumptuous ideas.   {2SM 32.2} 
          The Scriptures teach us to seek for the sanctification to God of body, soul, and spirit. In this work we are to be laborers together with God. Much may be done to restore the moral image of God in man, to improve the physical, mental, and moral capabilities. Great changes can be made in the physical system by obeying the laws of God and bringing into the body nothing that defiles. And while we cannot claim perfection of the flesh, we may have Christian perfection of the soul. Through the sacrifice made in our behalf, sins may be perfectly forgiven. Our dependence is not in what man can do; it is in what God can do for man through Christ. When we surrender ourselves wholly to God, and fully believe, the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin. The conscience can be freed from condemnation [it is not a legal problem]. Through faith in His blood, all may be made perfect in Christ Jesus. Thank God that we are not dealing with impossibilities. We may claim sanctification. We may enjoy the favor of God. We are not to be anxious about what Christ and God think of us, but about what God thinks of Christ, our Substitute. Ye are accepted in the Beloved. The Lord shows, to the repenting, believing one, that Christ accepts the surrender of the soul, to be molded and fashioned after His own likeness.  {2SM 32.3} 

this is also not to think that we are not to be transformed. God will not declare righteous unless we really are - God can not lie. As EGW says in Steps to Christ, we need to total transformation. This is not a legal issue, for just a legal declaration will not make the transformation needed.

In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. {Con 21.3}

The usual interpretation is that this was a legal requirement. " There is a divinely appointed connection between sin and disease. No physician can practice for a month without seeing this illustrated. He may ignore the fact; his mind may be so occupied with other matters that his attention will not be called to it; but if he will be observing and honest he cannot help acknowledging that sin and disease bear to each other the relationship of cause and effect. {5T 444.2}" Christ took on Himself, our condition, so that He may know how to help us. Hebrews 2:18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. 1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live to righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.

The science I read, shows that ALL disease ulimately relates back to the genome. Yes, this is a bold statement, and is not 100% proven. Sin and disease bear the relationship of cause and effect. And what exactly in the genome is it? This has been identified, it is "mobile genetic elements". One example of this is a virus. Viruses highjack the biologic system in order to replicate itself. Sin causes disease. Viruses cause disease. A virus is not "caused by sin". There for do the math, what is a virus?

Mere forgiveness of sin is not the sole result of the death of Jesus. He made the infinite sacrifice not only that sin might be removed, but that human nature might be restored, rebeautified, reconstructed from its ruins, and made fit for the presence of God. {3SM 154.1}

Exactly!!! Mere forgiveness, LEGAL PARDON does not save us. Christ's death was made so that sin can not only be removed, but there is total restoration, healing. " The very essence of the gospel is restoration,... {CT 467.1} The restoration is not a legal processes, it is a healing process.

Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

Is this a legal pardon? The law must be satisfied. We can not be saved in our sin. WE must be healed of our sin. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.


Were there no justice, no penalty, there would be no stability to the government of God. It is the mingling of judgment and mercy that makes salvation full and complete. It is the blending of the two that leads us, as we view the world's Redeemer and the law of Jehovah, to exclaim, "Thy gentleness hath made me great" (2 Samuel 22:36). {AG 70}

The question is, how is the penalty inflicted. Is the penalty a judicial act, or as EGW says, sin and its effects work on the basis of cause and effect?

Christ on the cross not only draws men to repentance toward God for the transgression of His law--for whom God pardons He first makes penitent--but Christ has satisfied Justice; He has proffered Himself as an atonement. {AG 153.2}

Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. How are we reconciled to God by Christ's death? We see the cause and effect. God did not execute Christ. Christ died the death of a sinner, proving the wages of sin is death. 1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live to righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed. Hebrews 2:14-18 For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For truly he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. 2 Corinthians 5:21 For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

These quotes are literal quotes, not some skillful legal transfer of sin to Christ.
A Divine Remedy for Sin.--The atonement of Christ is not a mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned; it is a divine remedy for the cure of transgression and the restoration of spiritual health. It is the Heaven-ordained means by which the righteousness of Christ may be not only upon us but in our hearts and characters (Letter 406, 1906). {6BC 1074.2}

Through the cross, man was drawn to God, and God to man. Justice moved from its high and awful position, and the heavenly hosts, the armies of holiness, drew near to the cross, bowing with reverence; for at the cross justice was satisfied. Through the cross the sinner was drawn from the stronghold of sin, from the confederacy of evil, and at every approach to the cross his heart relents and in penitence he cries, "It was my sins that crucified the Son of God." At the cross he leaves his sins, and through the grace of Christ his character is transformed. {AG 74.5}

Please explain how the genome is not hereditary. The genome carries a tremendous amount of information, both encoded in the base pairs of the code and in the epigenome. Epigenetic changes in a parent can be transmitted to their offspring in the very next generation. There are childhood cancers that are related to what the grandparents ate. This is an example of epigenetic transfer. This is inheritance which is genetic. Many weaknesses are genetically inherited.

The Law of Gravity is not self acting. It can do nothing in and of itself. Jesus did not set it in motion and now it acts of its own accord. Nothing in nature is self-acting. None of the laws of nature act on their own. Each and every law of nature is dependent on Jesus to act each and every second of its existence. Water would not flow downhill, plants would not grow, flowers would not bloom, wind would not blow, the sun would not shine without Jesus causing them to do so.

The idea that Jesus works to prevent our sins from triggering the laws of nature and causing disease and destruction assumes the laws of nature are self-acting. The idea that the antediluvians sinned in a way that caused the forces of nature to release a worldwide deluge assumes the forces of nature are self-acting, as if they are capable of acting on their own, as if all Jesus did was stop working to hold them in check. Not so.

The law of God is as sacred as God Himself. It is a revelation of His will, a transcript of His character, the expression of divine love and wisdom. The harmony of creation depends upon the perfect conformity of all beings, of everything, animate and inanimate, to the law of the Creator. God has ordained laws for the government, not only of living beings, but of all the operations of nature. Everything is under fixed laws, which cannot be disregarded. But while everything in nature is governed by natural laws, man alone, of all that inhabits the earth, is amenable to moral law. To man, the crowning work of creation, God has given power to understand His requirements, to comprehend the justice and beneficence of His law, and its sacred claims upon him; and of man unswerving obedience is required. {PP 52.3}
Like the angels, the dwellers in Eden had been placed upon probation; their happy estate could be retained only on condition of fidelity to the Creator's law. They could obey and live, or disobey and perish. God had made them the recipients of rich blessings; but should they disregard His will, He who spared not the angels that sinned, could not spare them; transgression would forfeit His gifts and bring upon them misery and ruin. {PP 53.1}

As the Supreme Ruler of the universe, God has ordained laws for the government not only of all living beings, but of all the operations of nature. Everything, whether great or small, animate or inanimate, is under fixed laws which cannot be disregarded. There are no exceptions to this rule {ST, April 15, 1886 par. 2}

n the creation of man was manifest the agency of a personal God. When God had made man in His image, the human form was perfect in all its arrangements, but it was without life. Then a personal, self-existing God breathed into that form the breath of life, and man became a living, breathing, intelligent being. All parts of the human organism were put in action. The heart, the arteries, the veins, the tongue, the hands, the feet, the senses, the perceptions of the mind--all began their work, and all were placed under law. Man became a living soul. Through Jesus Christ a personal God created man and endowed him with intelligence and power. {8T 264.1}

The idea that the sins of the wicked will cause fire to rain down on them at the end of time assumes the forces of nature are self-acting, as if Jesus need only step aside and allow fire to do its thing. Fire cannot do a single thing without Jesus causing it to happen. The fact fire will rain down and consume the ungodly in duration according to their sinfulness is proof Jesus is acting to thus employ the forces of nature to punish them.

You are not representing what I said. I never said that the sins of the wicked will cause file to rain down on them. I said that the fire that comes down, is God's glory. God has masked his glory or else we would have been consumed. Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire. Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the day comes, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yes, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that comes shall burn them up, said the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. Exodus 24:17 And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. 2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved to fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:10-12 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hastening to the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Why does this happen? God administering capital punishment? Or is it again, cause and effect? Isaiah 33:14-15 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness has surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? 15 He that walks righteously, and speaks uprightly; he that despises the gain of oppressions, that shakes his hands from holding of bribes, that stops his ears from hearing of blood, and shuts his eyes from seeing evil;

The atonement of Christ is not a mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned [It is not a legal pardon]; it is a divine remedy [it is a healing process] for the cure of transgression and the restoration of spiritual health. It is the heaven-ordained means by which the righteousness of Christ may be not only upon us, but in our hearts and characters.--Letter 406, 1906. {7ABC 464.2}

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The law condemns, it can not save. Therefore salvation can not be a legal process through the law. "The very essence of the gospel is restoration, and the Saviour would have us bid the sick, the hopeless, and the afflicted take hold upon His strength. {DA 824.5}"