Dead in sins

[dizerner]

The wages of sin is death.

I think this concept is key to this topic. I've heard people so water it down that they'll say that this can fit eating a bad diet, so that you don't live as long. And if we are going to keep physicalizing and naturalizing death, that seems to be the natural conclusion. The wages of sin is death? Is that really saying that because a person sins he will physically die? And then the most righteous person on earth will die too, as was once pointed out to Jesus. But Jesus added something a little significant: he said a person can "die in their sins." The wages of sin is death? But the gift of God is? A resurrection? Or life... or both... is life just a resurrection? Do we have life later, but not right now? "He who believes has life?" But Jesus, we are all going to die... if I "have" life didn't I already "have" physical life, and now that I have "life" why do I still die before I get resurrected? Is it because of the wages of sin? Paul said our sins are "storing up wrath"... he also said being dead in sins (whether or not a baby is) is being "a child of wrath." Does that wrath result in our becoming physically dead? Is the wrath of God revealed from heaven when granny dies in a nursing home of old age, or when cousin Bob dies in a car accident? Are all people "dying" in Adam really just the loss of their physical immortality? Or the loss of their experience of God and the gain of the experience of Satan? Who held the power of death? God? Hebrews says Christ "destroyed him who had the power of death." Who had the power of death? What was this power? Why did the power of death hold people in fear and bondage? Why does Christ say "the Son sets you free" to children of Abraham? Why do we have to know the truth to be free from sin? The wages of sin is... death. What kind of death? "You have neither seen him or known him," Christ said. "Die in your sins." "Once dead in sin." The wages of sin is death. The soul that sins must die. Physically? "This is the second death." Oh, there's two kinds? "In the day you eat of it, you will surely die." Him who held the power of death... "you will not surely die!" "He who believed has passed from death to life." All died in Adam. This is the second death. What is the end result of the things for which you are now ashamed? The sting of death is sin, and the broken law gives sin its power... Christ tasted death for every man. The wages of sin is not physical death, or every man would pay his own wages and not need Christ, since we all die, and Christ would have lived forever since he was sinless.

[jriccitelli]

I think positionally, practically, and posthumous apply to the dead in sins scenario.

But you could say: Only those on the new earth will be able to eat again of the tree of life.

So you've got to get back to earth again if you want to live forever.

[willowtree]

I'm not so convinced anymore that God is bound by some need to satisfy legal justice in order to extend grace.

Regards, Brenden.

I am not so sure about that. It seems to me that legal justice validates grace, since sin cannot simply be swept under the rug. Here are some considerations that lead me to this.

The testimony of the angels in Revelation (Rev 16:5-7) attest to God's acts of judgment as being 'just' (NIV) or 'righteous' (NKJV).

Paul's arguments in Romans as he develops his explanation of salvation - the evil of sin ch 1 , righteous judgment ch 2, the provision of atonement ch 3, and so on. But in chapter 8: 32-34 Paul uses legal language to make a point. "Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns?" To me the point is this - that Satan has no legal grounds at all to condemn any believer. What makes this scene worse is that it looks like the whole courtroom scene is rigged - the judge is related to the defendant's advocate (v32), who sits on the bench beside the judge (v34). How can true justice be served under this arrangement? The answer is that Satan's opportunity was given him at the cross when Jesus, fully representative of all men, was tried in circumstances where God did not interfere and there was no advocate. The verdict of guilty was given, the punishment of death was called for, and was carried out. All legal avenues were carried out to their final and just conclusions.

Regards, Graeme

[TheEditor]

Hi Graeme,

I was raised to believe in substitutionary atonement. In fact, the way it was always presented to me was that God's primary reason in atoning for mankind's sin through His Son, was so that His (God's) sovereignty could be vindicated. Man's salvation as a creature was secondary to that. Think in terms of the SDA's concept of the Great Controversy and you kind of get the picture.

This kind of viewpoint is very off-putting when it comes to approaching God as Father in love. I do not doubt that Christ's atoning work has some way of saving man--but to look at it in a nuts-and-bolts legal way, to my mind, robs it of it's love and mercy. I am sure you are aware that the views of the Ransom number at least seven, and all views, to one degree or another, have their merits. I have a working theory, and it is only a theory, that God was trying to draw men to himself through Christ, but that this drawing was consequent on man's freewill to choose. Therefore, any system God would use to appeal to men's hearts would have to be elastic enough to accommodate "persons of all sorts" (John 12:32) As I read the Scriptures now, I see a God that is far more accommodating of the weaknesses in mental limitations of man then I once did. That is why it may sound as though I bristle at "exacting justice".

Even though Paul's words in Romans 8 seem larded with certain legal connotations, I'm not sure that was exactly what he was highlighting. God justifies, so who can accuse? Only God's Son could accuse, and yet he is there at the right-hand of God for our advocacy. Therefore, take heart for:

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

By the way, as a side-bar; Paul appears to draw a distinction between righteousness and goodness when he says: "For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Ro 5:7, 8) A person can be "righteous"; honest, have integrity, not perverting justice, etc. but not be "good". Paul seems to imply something better about the "good" man. You obviously could not be unrighteous and be good, but you could be righteous without being good. Yet there appear to be qualities of the "good" man that are not necessarily apparent in the "righteous" man. Compare Mt 12:35; 20:10-15; Lu 6:9, 33, 35, 36; Joh 7:12; Ac 14:17; Ro 12:20, 21; 1Th 5:15.

To use an example, maybe a better one could be chosen, but I'm just going off the top of my head; Paul shows that the "righteous man" could have respect and admiration for their righteous behavior (say a character like Mitt Romney, for convenience). He may not have on that basis such an appeal to the hearts of others that they would feel impelled to die for him. However, a good man, known for his warmth, who is actively benevolent, inviting, concerned, merciful, affectionate, etc. (say, the character of George Bailey as portrayed by Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life) may appeal to people's hearts enough that a few would consider giving their life for such a man.

The Scriptures, contrast "good" with "wicked, "evil", "vile" and "bad"; but contrast "righteous" or "righteous one" with "sinner" (Mark 2:17; Luke 15:7) A person could be a sinner without be called vile or wicked, and a righteous person could not necessarily be good. Joseph of Aramathea was both "good" and "righteous".

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

"For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Ro 5:7, 8)

Paul is contrasting righteous and good people against the people Christ died for. Logically I'm either 1) a person Christ died for or 2) a righteous and good person. Therefore claiming to be good, is claiming that I don't need Christ to die for me. Because whatever God shows his love for, whatever Christ died for, clearly it says here it is not a righteous person and not a good person. This is the point of the wages of sin, and that all have sinned and fall short. Someone has to pay the price, someone has to die. Who has to die? The sinner has to die. How can God fulfill that law but still save us from the penalty of sin? This is why all moralism, righteousness by works, indeed all errors of every kind, always remove and attack the power of faith in what Christ did on the cross for us. They will say our flesh can please God, instead of reckoning it crucified in Christ. Live out of that old person, and Satan is delighted for us to try with all our heart to please God and be righteous, for we cannot. Point to the cross and say God as a man did what I can never do, and you will be born again with all the power of the Holy Spirit at your disposal.

[TheEditor]

Hi Dizerner,

Are you disagreeing with something I wrote, or just venting? I'm not sure I get your point.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

God's justice in not penal. It's not, "You did the crime so you do the time (in hell, which supposedly is endless)." God's justice is restorative. Christ's death is meant to save us from ourselves and from SIN—not merely from the penalty of sin. If it were the latter, then we could go on sinning with impunity. Indeed, that's exactly how I used to think. "Once you are born again," I used to say, "You cannot become unborn." You were unconditionally secure for ever, and one you were saved from hell, it was impossible for you to be lost and end up there.

Now I see it differerntly. You need to stay on the narrow path, or you will have to undergo God's severe correction. Now I believe all of God's judgmenents are remedial (See my signature statement). No need to present me with OT examples of God wiping out people just out of vengeance. I believe that God has the character which Jesus ascribed to Him. He is kind to both ungrateful people and evil people (Luke 6:35). We are saved from SIN, and any salvation from hell is but secondary. Hell is God's gracious provision for correction. No one will receive any discomfort more than is absolutely necessary. God it tota LOVE, and will do his best for every individual. His will is that ALL come to repentance! And He is willing patiently to wait for as long as it takes for that to occur. For everyone will be salted with fire (Mark 9:49).