Sin destroy's itself...

[Twilight]

Now some have made the argument that sin destroys itself and they are claiming the bible teaches this principle.

That if God just steps back, sin will destroy itself.

Is this true?

Does sin when left to itself destroy itself?

Or does sin grow?

Or something else?

Discuss. :-)

God bless,

Mark

[Twilight]

If sin destroys itself, why did God need to remove the gift of immortality?

Why institute that punishment in Eden?

[Musicman1228]

God did not remove the 'gift' of immortality from Adam and Eve, they were created mortal. I site the fact that God placed the 'Tree of Life' in the garden for their benefit. One of the major punishments for their disobedience was that God removed them from the Garden, WHERE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE TREE OF LIFE. If they were created immortal then WHY would God put the Tree of Life in the Garden.

and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Rev. 20:10.

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence1 had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh. Rev.19:20-21.

Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.   (15) And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Rev. 20:14-15.

I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was killed, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. Dan.7:11.

It is evident that God destroys evil, and with it He destroys those that still contain evil, those who have not washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.

[Twilight]

But has He removed immortality from Satan MM?

Mark :-)

[Guest]

This idea that sin will somehow destroy itself is not biblical at all. The Bible and EGW plainly tell how sin will be destroyed. Nowhere does it claim that sin destroys itself. Those who believe it does, have to get around a mountain of evidence to the contrary. This is done by taking a few EGW quotes out of context, and then claiming that the whole Bible must be re-interpreted with these quotes being the guideline, or foundation. This is not in keeping with how Ellen White says we are to read Bible however. Here is a small portion of what she has to say on this:

If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error…. {DD 38.4}

If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says. {LHU 313}

The Bible, just as it reads, is to be our guide. {1MCP 93}

Brethren, cling to your Bible, as it reads, and stop your criticisms in regard to its validity, and obey the Word, and not one of you will be lost. {1SM 18}

Unless the whole Bible is given to the people just as it reads, it would be better for them not to have it at all. {4SP 344}

[Twilight]

This idea that sin will somehow destroy itself is not biblical at all. The Bible and EGW plainly tell how sin will be destroyed. Nowhere does it claim that sin destroys itself. Those who believe it does, have to get around a mountain of evidence to the contrary. This is done by taking a few EGW quotes out of context, and then claiming that the whole Bible must be re-interpreted with these quotes being the guideline, or foundation. This is not in keeping with how Ellen White says we are to read Bible however. Here is a small portion of what she has to say on this:

If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error…. {DD 38.4}

If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says. {LHU 313}

The Bible, just as it reads, is to be our guide. {1MCP 93}

Brethren, cling to your Bible, as it reads, and stop your criticisms in regard to its validity, and obey the Word, and not one of you will be lost. {1SM 18}

Unless the whole Bible is given to the people just as it reads, it would be better for them not to have it at all. {4SP 344}

Excellent points Richard.

But can you see where this goes?

If God does not destroy sin, if it wipes itself out.

Then God did not need to do anything.

Satan would have self combusted at some earlier point.

The fact that sin that it has to be contained, that it has to be bought to a close, should be instructive for us.

Without Gods direct intercession, sin increases.

The only thing that stops sin spreading throughout the universe, is the very fact God has only allowed it to be manifested here, that He has excluded Satan from heaven.

But I think your point about letting the bible be plain is extremely important.

Mark :-)

[Guest]

God destroyed the people of earth once before when it got to be too much. This time it will never raise it's ugly head again. Sin cannot do that to itself.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

[Gail]

Just a note-

Not only does sin increase, but it seems to prosper- Ps.73:1-> It was only in the light of the sanctuary (the Cross) that the Psalmist could see God's dealing with it. Asaph rests in the thought that there will be a time when the Lord "awakes"(v.20) and takes care of it.

[Twilight]

God destroyed the people of earth once before when it got to be too much. This time it will never raise it's ugly head again. Sin cannot do that to itself.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

And why did He destroy them?

Because sin had grown out of control.

It had grown until there were none righteous left except for Noah and his family.

Sin had become so prevalent, so insidious, the only option left was to destroy it.

Viruses only die when they have consumed the host.

Sin will only die if:

1. It consumes the whole universe.

2. God treats the infection.

Your thoughts?

Mark

[Twilight]

Just a note-

Not only does sin increase, but it seems to prosper- Ps.73:1-> It was only in the light of the sanctuary (the Cross) that the Psalmist could see God's dealing with it. Asaph rests in the thought that there will be a time when the Lord "awakes"(v.20) and takes care of it.

A good point Gail.

God permits sin so that the universe can see it.

Then when it has gone to the point where He can bare it no more, He will rise up and end it.

Himself, personally.

He is the only one powerful enough to destroy it.

The rest of creation would not be able to stand against it.

So the idea that it will "destroy" itself, is contrary to the plain history of the sin problem.

Sin does not destroy itself, sin prospers.

Unless the Lord steps in and deals with it.

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

Now some have made the argument that sin destroys itself and they are claiming the bible teaches this principle.

That if God just steps back, sin will destroy itself.

Is this true?

Does sin when left to itself destroy itself?

Or does sin grow?

Or something else?

Discuss. :-)

God bless,

Mark

If sin destroys those who practice it, then one could say it destroys itself, from that standpoint.

What is the principle upon which sin is based? Selfishness. So let's assume that sin does not destroy those who practice it. What is the implication of this?

The implication is that selfishness is a principle which does not destroy, but which can promote life. That's clearly false (does anyone want to argue that it's not?). Therefore it follows that sin does destroy those who practice it, and thus, from this standpoint, destroy itself.

[Guest]

Why do you think that God has said he will destroy it?

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Sin has not been wiping itself out for the last 6000 years, it keeps growing...

That is self evident.

The argument that God does not destroy, implies that God is making sure sin "exists" if you belief sin will destroy itself.

Because if all God has to do is draw back for sin to destroy itself, why did he not do that at the beginning.

Sin grows, it does not "destroy itself".

It seems the idea being expressed here is that God is losing the Great Controversy, and will continue to lose it, until He resorts to force and violence to win it. He'll win it, eventually, because He is stronger than anyone else, and so can apply greater force and violence than anyone else.

I have more to say on this topic, but before going on, I'd like to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly.

Regarding your question:

Quote:

Because if all God has to do is draw back for sin to destroy itself, why did he not do that at the beginning.

this precise question is answered in DA 764:

Quote:

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

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

The second paragraph explains why God did not do as you suggested. Had he left Satan to reap what he had sown, it would not have been apparent that his death was due to sin. It would have appeared that God killed him, which would have resulted in seeds of doubt of God's goodness. The cross reveals the true nature of sin. Now that the death which sin causes has been seen by Christ, it will safe to allow Satan to die the death which is "the inevitable result of sin" without misunderstanding.

[pnattmbtc]

Why do you think that God has said he will destroy it?

God is often presented as doing that which He permits. (Saul, the numbering of Israel, sending serpents upon the Israelites, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc.)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Now some have made the argument that sin destroys itself and they are claiming the bible teaches this principle.

That if God just steps back, sin will destroy itself.

Is this true?

Does sin when left to itself destroy itself?

Or does sin grow?

Or something else?

Discuss. :-)

God bless,

Mark

If sin destroys those who practice it, then one could say it destroys itself, from that standpoint.

What is the principle upon which sin is based? Selfishness. So let's assume that sin does not destroy those who practice it. What is the implication of this?

The implication is that selfishness is a principle which does not destroy, but which can promote life. That's clearly false (does anyone want to argue that it's not?). Therefore it follows that sin does destroy those who practice it, and thus, from this standpoint, destroy itself.

But does sin just destroy itself?

If sin was not restricted, would it have destroyed the whole universe?

It has destroyed nearly the whole of humanity.

So yes, I believe it would have.

The argument presented here, is that without Gods direct intervention, sin would not be destroyed.

If God just needed to sit back and wait for sin to destroy itself, why did He send His Son to die.

Sin would have just fizzled away at some point.

If we are saying that sin does destroy itself, we are saying it is not neccessary that Jesus died.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Now some have made the argument that sin destroys itself and they are claiming the bible teaches this principle.

That if God just steps back, sin will destroy itself.

Is this true?

Does sin when left to itself destroy itself?

Or does sin grow?

Or something else?

Discuss. :-)

God bless,

Mark

If sin destroys those who practice it, then one could say it destroys itself, from that standpoint.

.

So then why did God send His son?

He did not need to.

He could have just let sin play itself out.

It would have destroyed itself and the whole universe would have said:

"Sin is bad".

Sin contaminates, it infects.

It is a disease and diseases do not "treat" themeselves.

They either kill the host or are killed.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Richard

Why do you think that God has said he will destroy it?

God is often presented as doing that which He permits. (Saul, the numbering of Israel, sending serpents upon the Israelites, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc.)

Yes in those specific instances.

But we cannot take that principle and then apply it to every part of the bible that talks about God destroying.

SOP and the bible both state that God destroys AND He permits Satan to detroy as a consequence for those that imbibe sin.

Both positions are presented as equally valid.

Using the above to "cancel" out all those other texts is reading the bible with one eye shut in my view.

But back to topic.

Sin destroying itself?

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

If sin destroys those who practice it, then one could say it destroys itself, from that standpoint.

What is the principle upon which sin is based? Selfishness. So let's assume that sin does not destroy those who practice it. What is the implication of this?

The implication is that selfishness is a principle which does not destroy, but which can promote life. That's clearly false (does anyone want to argue that it's not?). Therefore it follows that sin does destroy those who practice it, and thus, from this standpoint, destroy itself.

Quote:

But does sin just destroy itself?

As I said above (in what you quoted), sin destroys the one who practices it, so from this standpoint, destroys itself. It's like a parasite that destroys its host.

Quote:

If sin was not restricted, would it have destroyed the whole universe?

I don't know what you're referring to here. Restricted how?

Quote:

It has destroyed nearly the whole of humanity.

So yes, I believe it would have.

The universe consists of millions of worlds, all unfallen except this one. How would it have destroyed all these other worlds, given that no one in these other worlds sinned?

Quote:

The argument presented here, is that without Gods direct intervention, sin would not be destroyed.

I've said that selfishness is a principle which is destructive, which cannot promote life. Do you disagree?

Quote:

If God just needed to sit back and wait for sin to destroy itself, why did He send His Son to die.

To save us from sin, of course! I'm arguing that we need to be saved from sin, because sin is destructive. If one takes the point of view that sin is not destructive, *then* the question of why God sent Christ might make some sense.

Quote:

Sin would have just fizzled away at some point.

After destroying every human being.

Quote:

If we are saying that sin does destroy itself, we are saying it is not neccessary that Jesus died.

Mark :-) [/quote']

This is utterly backwards! If sin is NOT destructive, THEN one could argue that it wasn't necessary for Christ to come. But if sin IS destructive, then Christ must come to save us from it.

[pnattmbtc]

So then why did God send His son?

He did not need to.

He could have just let sin play itself out.

It would have destroyed itself and the whole universe would have said:

"Sin is bad".

Sin contaminates, it infects.

It is a disease and diseases do not "treat" themeselves.

They either kill the host or are killed.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard

Why do you think that God has said he will destroy it?

God is often presented as doing that which He permits. (Saul, the numbering of Israel, sending serpents upon the Israelites, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc.)

Not a good answer. That leaves you hanging, concerning the final judgment, with nothing but speculation, innuendo, conjecture, and pre-supposition.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

So then why did God send His son?

He did not need to.

He could have just let sin play itself out.

It would have destroyed itself and the whole universe would have said:

"Sin is bad".

Sin contaminates, it infects.

It is a disease and diseases do not "treat" themeselves.

They either kill the host or are killed.

Given that sin destroys everyone who practices it, had God not sent His Son, all of humanity would have been lost. God so loved the world that He gave His Son, to save the world from the destruction of sin.

Going back to the post which spawned this, I said:

Quote:

It seems the idea being expressed here is that God is losing the Great Controversy, and will continue to lose it, until He resorts to force and violence to win it. He'll win it, eventually, because He is stronger than anyone else, and so can apply greater force and violence than anyone else.

I have more to say on this topic, but before going on, I'd like to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly.

To the best of my knowledge, you haven't responded to this (my apologies if I missed a response.) Did I correctly represent your argument?

The position being made is this:

Unless God steps in, sin will destroy everyone and everything.

God by being inactive would "lose" the Great Controversy, because sin would destroy His whole universe.

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

God is often presented as doing that which He permits. (Saul' date=' the numbering of Israel, sending serpents upon the Israelites, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc.)[/quote']

Not a good answer. That leaves you hanging, concerning the final judgment, with nothing but speculation, innuendo, conjecture, and pre-supposition.

?

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

Given that sin destroys everyone who practices it, had God not sent His Son, all of humanity would have been lost. God so loved the world that He gave His Son, to save the world from the destruction of sin.

Going back to the post which spawned this, I said:

Quote:

It seems the idea being expressed here is that God is losing the Great Controversy, and will continue to lose it, until He resorts to force and violence to win it. He'll win it, eventually, because He is stronger than anyone else, and so can apply greater force and violence than anyone else.

I have more to say on this topic, but before going on, I'd like to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly.

To the best of my knowledge, you haven't responded to this (my apologies if I missed a response.) Did I correctly represent your argument?

The position being made is this:

Unless God steps in, sin will destroy everyone and everything.

God by being inactive would "lose" the Great Controversy, because sin would destroy His whole universe.

Mark [/quote']

This sounds like what I've been saying. God stepped in by sending Jesus Christ to reveal His character. Otherwise sin would destroy those who practice it.

Back to my question. I got the impression from what you said before that God would win the Great Controversy by destroying those who sin; i.e. by force and violence. Specifically I asked:

Quote:

It seems the idea being expressed here is that God is losing the Great Controversy, and will continue to lose it, until He resorts to force and violence to win it. He'll win it, eventually, because He is stronger than anyone else, and so can apply greater force and violence than anyone else.

I have more to say on this topic, but before going on, I'd like to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly.

Am I understanding you correctly? Yes or no please. If no, please explain what I've said that is different from what you were wanting to say.

[Guest]

?

That's right, you have no scripture that backs up your claims about the final judgment, because it is something that has never happened before. There is scripture to compare it to, but none that helps your argument.

God said he would destroy the world by flood. And he did it!

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for I am sorry that I have made them.

God said he was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah with fire. And he did it!

Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Gen 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

It is of no consiquence to me if you believe the scientists over the Bible. It will only add to your lack of understanding.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

The position being made is this:

Unless God steps in, sin will destroy everyone and everything.

God by being inactive would "lose" the Great Controversy, because sin would destroy His whole universe.

Mark [/quote']

This sounds like what I've been saying. God stepped in by sending Jesus Christ to reveal His character. Otherwise sin would destroy those who practice it.

Back to my question. I got the impression from what you said before that God would win the Great Controversy by destroying those who sin; i.e. by force and violence. Specifically I asked:

Quote:

It seems the idea being expressed here is that God is losing the Great Controversy, and will continue to lose it, until He resorts to force and violence to win it. He'll win it, eventually, because He is stronger than anyone else, and so can apply greater force and violence than anyone else.

I have more to say on this topic, but before going on, I'd like to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly.

Am I understanding you correctly? Yes or no please. If no, please explain what I've said that is different from what you were wanting to say.

Why do I always get the impression you are trying to push people into a corner by specifying yes or no answers to your questions pnat? :-)

Mark