Why the necessity of "faith"?

[shad]

Wow, . . . . . . . . I'm thankful for all those disobedient men and women who defend our country. :yes



Interestinly, . . . . seems like Heaven has changed it's mind on the whole "war" thing, beause it was commanded them to battle in the Old Testament.

God is perfect and He knows what He is doing, we humans dont. He does not allow any of us to judge another country as evil nation. We are all in the same boat as a whole "evil" by nature, so we are not holier than our enemy country. God does not play favoritism. Jesus' followers are not of this world, Jesus followers should stay out of politics. At least that's what Jesus says, "love your enemy" not kill your enemy.

BTW, in OT times, God ordered to kill evil people, not anyone else. We are not God. And remember that Jesus did not harm anyone in the NT, not even one. We should imitate our perfect Teacher.

.

.

 

[shad]

Orion,

I just showed you just one example how to strive to be obedient to Jesus' commandment and you are already resisting it.

We never know true God's blessings if we dont strive to be obedient to Jesus. We will be powerless witnesses for the Lord if we are not obedient. It does not matter how much we study or read the Bible if we dont strive to put into practice everything we read and learn.
.

 

[Orion]

Pretty much every nation could be considered "an evil nation". So, does God want "evil nations" destroyed still, or is that over. . . . . . . . at least for the time being, when they will again be targeted?

BTW, what am I resisting? There is a descrepency between the OT and NT when it comes to how "enemies" were treated, or ARE to be treated.

For me, I plan on killing no one, . . . but I'm not going to pass judgement on those who sign up to defend our country.

 

[shad]

Pretty much every nation could be considered "an evil nation". So, does God want "evil nations" destroyed still, or is that over. . . . . . . . at least for the time being, when they will again be targeted?

If your nation is evil why does He allow you to destroy another nation? God is not illogical God.

BTW, what am I resisting? There is a descrepency between the OT and NT when it comes to how "enemies" were treated, or ARE to be treated.

Jesus says plainly "love your enemy", simple commandment.

For me, I plan on killing no one, . . . but I'm not going to pass judgement on those who sign up to defend our country.

Ok, suit yourself. You just keep quite about disobedients. You are obviously defending people who are killing their enemy. Jesus does not condone people who condone evil.

.

 

[Orion]

Where the Israelites "loving their enemies" when they were killing them?

 

[shad]

Where the Israelites "loving their enemies" when they were killing them?

I already explained it; God is perfect and He knows everything and what is right thing to do, and above all He rules everything. He is the owner of this earth and everything else. He ordered the Israelites to destroy some evil nations, not anyone else. He does not allow any kings or governments to destroy any nation because we are so selfish and think of our own country's welfare.

.

 

[mondar]

I guess my problem is in translating what it means to "totally submit" to the words written in a book. I don't feel a connection WITH God. And as for the issue of "faith", . . . here is my thoughts on that. The apostles were supposed to be the greats of the faith, . . . doing great things after the ascension. But did they have "FAITH"? They knew Jesus personally, saw what He did, watched Him die, witnessed His ressurection and ascention. In this case, they didn't "walk by faith", . . .but were living it.

However, the gift of "faith" has not rested upon me. Though I try to reconcile the idea of it in my life, I wind up well short of any significant goal. Reading the Bible doesn't translate into anything specific to me.

Maybe 5 point Calvanism is actually true, and the reason I'm not the way Christianity says I should be is because I'm actually NOT "chosen".

Orion,
*** Concerning the apostles, I am not sure what the difference is between "walk by faith" and living it. They seem the same to me. I am not sure what you are saying.

*** How do you know the gift of faith has or has not rested upon you?

*** Yes, 5 point Calvinism is the most biblical theology. However, you are not saved by correctly understanding the doctrine of election, but you are saved by faith. This would not be the time to stray from your query on what is faith, and do you have it.

 

[Orion]

Orion,
*** Concerning the apostles, I am not sure what the difference is between "walk by faith" and living it. They seem the same to me. I am not sure what you are saying.

Faith is believing in that which is unseen. The apostles saw it first hand. Therefore, they could not "walk by faith" that what was said about a man, in a book written by men, was actually true. They were saved not by faith, but by their own witness of the events.

*** How do you know the gift of faith has or has not rested upon you?

Because "faith" has not changed me. It has not caused me to embrace it fully. I cannot have "faith" in a "relationship with God" when it only resides IN "faith".

*** Yes, 5 point Calvinism is the most biblical theology. However, you are not saved by correctly understanding the doctrine of election, but you are saved by faith. This would not be the time to stray from your query on what is faith, and do you have it.

So, because I don't have "faith", I cannot be saved. I try VERY hard to understand it, . . . to gain some sort of "relationship" that has meaning. I fail every time. If Calvanism is true, I must conclude that I am one that is "bound for destruction". After all, God HAS placed many souls in that basket, on purpose, . . . so if that's the case, and I AM one of those in that basket, nothing I can do will make any difference because it has all been predetermined LONG before I was even born. . . . . yet I was still allowed TO BE born just so I will burn for all eternity for God's pleasure [the smoke of their torment ...].

 

[shad]

it has all been predetermined LONG before I was even born. . . . . yet I was still allowed TO BE born just so I will burn for all eternity for God's pleasure [the smoke of their torment ...].

Orion,

God is Just, He will not determine who will be saved or elect. Please read the Bible with whole context of the Bible principle. God is a Just God. You are relying on other's interpretation too much. You should have your own relationship with God and Jesus, not through your church doctrines or your pastor.

.

 

[Orion]

shad, . . . again I have to state that I have NO idea what it means to have a "faith based relationship" with God/Jesus. Me reading the Bible and praying doesn't translate into "a relationship".

As for the Calvanism part, . . . that's another debate for another thread, but I don't believe that MY church teachese 5 point Calvanism, but salvation by grace.

 

[mondar]

Orion,
*** Concerning the apostles, I am not sure what the difference is between "walk by faith" and living it. They seem the same to me. I am not sure what you are saying.

Faith is believing in that which is unseen. The apostles saw it first hand. Therefore, they could not "walk by faith" that what was said about a man, in a book written by men, was actually true. They were saved not by faith, but by their own witness of the events.

Heh, sorry, I am still not getting it. You mean you think that the apostles were saved by witnessing the events of Jesus life? What about the rest of the Jews who witnessed those same event and rejected Jesus? How does witnessing events save the apostles?

*** How do you know the gift of faith has or has not rested upon you?

Because "faith" has not changed me. It has not caused me to embrace it fully. I cannot have "faith" in a "relationship with God" when it only resides IN "faith".

When you use the pronoun "it," I am not always sure what you refer to. The printed medium is not always easy for communication, bear with me here.

The only thing I see is that you express yourself as "have faith in a relationship with God." The object of faith is not the relationship, but the object of faith is that the shed blood of Jesus Christ is sufficient payment for both our sin, and the sin of Adam (Original Sin).

*** Yes, 5 point Calvinism is the most biblical theology. However, you are not saved by correctly understanding the doctrine of election, but you are saved by faith. This would not be the time to stray from your query on what is faith, and do you have it.

So, because I don't have "faith", I cannot be saved. I try VERY hard to understand it, . . . to gain some sort of "relationship" that has meaning. I fail every time. If Calvanism is true, I must conclude that I am one that is "bound for destruction". After all, God HAS placed many souls in that basket, on purpose, . . . so if that's the case, and I AM one of those in that basket, nothing I can do will make any difference because it has all been predetermined LONG before I was even born. . . . . yet I was still allowed TO BE born just so I will burn for all eternity for God's pleasure [the smoke of their torment ...].

The names of the elect might be written in heaven, but they are not revealed to any of us on earth. I dont think it is correct for you to say that you know you are not elect. The best you can do is that you deny that you trust Christs payment as sufficient for your salvation at this point in your life.

On the other hand, when you say "because I don't have faith, I cannot be saved." That would be correct. So then logically, if you recognize you dont have faith, change your mind and trust the substitution of Christ completely as a sufficient propitiation (the gift that turns away Gods wrath) God wrath and justify (declare righteous) you before God.

Orion, please answer these questions.
1--- Are you a rebel sinner?
2--- Is Christ's shed blood sufficient as payment to redeem you from the penalty of that sin?
3--- Will you trust in that payment to not only pay the price of your sin, but to set you on a course of beginning to gain victory over that sin? (certainly an ongoing process--but the regenerate have their works.)

 

[Orion]

Orion, please answer these questions.
1--- Are you a rebel sinner?
2--- Is Christ's shed blood sufficient as payment to redeem you from the penalty of that sin?
3--- Will you trust in that payment to not only pay the price of your sin, but to set you on a course of beginning to gain victory over that sin? (certainly an ongoing process--but the regenerate have their works.)

1. I do my best to NOT sin, frankly. I have AMPLE opportunity to, . . . and a physical "desire" to fill that tempation, but choose not to.. . . on purpose.

2. If what was written about Jesus, in the New Testament, is completely true, . . .then by that doctrine, "payment" was made. However, that opens up a whole other topic, . . . that being "God setting up a system, then having to pay for the system breakdown, because we couldn't", . . . and the "shedding of blood", via some other source "bull/calf or Christ", seems to ritualistic, when God could have just as easily forgiven the sins of those who asked for it, similar to how an earthly father forgives a son/daughter when they do something wrong, . . . without the need to destroy something else in the process.

3. Based upon my answers in #1 and #2, I can't really answer this one.

One could go further, on answer #2, by stating that "the power of the cross" is completely hinged upon the response of a person. It is powerLESS against someone who just happens to NOT believe in the words written down in a book [written by men, thousands of years ago], . . . without any outside reference to go on, . . . JUST "faith".

 

[mondar]

Orion, please answer these questions.
1--- Are you a rebel sinner?
2--- Is Christ's shed blood sufficient as payment to redeem you from the penalty of that sin?
3--- Will you trust in that payment to not only pay the price of your sin, but to set you on a course of beginning to gain victory over that sin? (certainly an ongoing process--but the regenerate have their works.)

1. I do my best to NOT sin, frankly. I have AMPLE opportunity to, . . . and a physical "desire" to fill that tempation, but choose not to.. . . on purpose.

OK, I think you are agreeing with the evil nature of man. We are rebel sinners, but in the next comments I think you minimize the great and exceeding evil of sin.

2. If what was written about Jesus, in the New Testament, is completely true, . . .then by that doctrine, "payment" was made. However, that opens up a whole other topic, . . . that being "God setting up a system, then having to pay for the system breakdown, because we couldn't", . . . and the "shedding of blood", via some other source "bull/calf or Christ", seems to ritualistic, when God could have just as easily forgiven the sins of those who asked for it, similar to how an earthly father forgives a son/daughter when they do something wrong, . . . without the need to destroy something else in the process.

It sounds like this is the place where you doubt. If I understand what you are saying, you doubt the truth that Christs shed blood is sufficient on the basis that "God could have just as easily forgiven sins of those who ask for it." Yet as I stated above, I dont think your understanding recognizes the tremendous evil of sin. I think you see the great sinfulness of man, but not the great holiness and righteousness of God. God is so holy, so perfect, sin cannot enter his presence. An interesting fact in the bible is that God is often spoke of as one of his attributes. The bible says God is love, God is truth, but the only attribute that is used three times, is God is holy. "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God Almighty." The bible never says that God is Love Love Love. I think you miss the biblical concept of Gods tremendous and great holiness.

Out of all the sins done by mankind, I dont think the most evil was murder, or rape, or anything like that. The greatest sin was the outright defying of Gods command to Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Eve ate before Adam, but Eve's sin did not bring about the wrath of God like Adams sin did. That is because Adam was our federal representative. We all sinned the greatest sin in Adam, and then, being in Adam, we practice sin. God pronounced upon Adam the curse of death. Of course this curse comes upon all who are in Adam, that is the whole human race. Of course as a part of this death, there is eternal separation from God.

Because you minimize the offense of both Adams sin, and our own personal sin... and because you underestimate the great holiness of God, sin becomes a small thing to you that God can just "forgive those who ask for it." I dont agree. I think the nature of the great evil of sin, and the nature of the great holiness of God demand the penalty be paid to the full. Who can pay such a price? Because of this great divide between our sinful rebellion, and the absolute holiness of God, the price could only be paid by a loving God who satisfies his own righteous and holy demands.

I think you do not have a problem of faith, I think you have a theological problem. Your theology does not recognize the great sinfulness of sin, nor the absolute holiness of God.

3. Based upon my answers in #1 and #2, I can't really answer this one.

One could go further, on answer #2, by stating that "the power of the cross" is completely hinged upon the response of a person. It is powerLESS against someone who just happens to NOT believe in the words written down in a book [written by men, thousands of years ago], . . . without any outside reference to go on, . . . JUST "faith".

"It is powerLESS against someone who just happens to NOT believe in the words written down in a book"
Actually there is a logic about what you say. You do not believe in Christ because you do not believe the scriptures to be true. In my mind, it seems totally illogical to believe in Christ and doubt the words of the book. Nevertheless, what would it take to get you to believe in the words of the book?

 

[francisdesales]

2--- Is Christ's shed blood sufficient as payment to redeem you from the penalty of that sin?
3--- Will you trust in that payment to not only pay the price of your sin, but to set you on a course of beginning to gain victory over that sin? (certainly an ongoing process--but the regenerate have their works.)

Ugh. This is an interesting point of argument here, that Christ died to make a payment! If you think about it, this "doctrine" leads to an understanding of God that is not in line with what we know about God through revelation - that God is Love.

Who is Jesus paying? Who does the Father "owe" that He must send His Son to die? What sort of God is this?

When was this idea official doctrine of the Church? I know St. Anselem pushed this in a more limited form, but St. Aquinas corrected him. Unfortunately, I think some of my separated brothers have latched onto this "penal substitution" theory, forgeting that God sent His only Son to show the depths of His love for us, not to pay "something". Christ came to transform us, to divinize us, to enable us to join in union with Him, not to make a payment to the devil, or whomever you have in mind.

There was a strand of Catholicism that preached this, what we call "penal substitution" (correct me if I am wrong, but the Bible does not state that Jesus substituted for us.) However, this line of thinking was found lacking and sorely misrepresented the God of Love, the core of the Gospel.

As Orion has said, there is no provision from Scriptures that God HAD to send His Son to die, especially not for payment, since God could have forgiven mankind's sins without the necessity of sending His Son. This fact makes the above "doctrine" quite onerous to the ears.

While the Scriptures does speak of a legal aspect of justification, this misses the main point of the Gospel - that God LOVED the world so much that He sent His only Son to PROVE it, giving life to those who would believe (not life to everyone since Christ substituted for everyone...)

Regards

 

[mondar]

Concerning a penal and substitutionary atonement....
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.
God's wrath is penal. There is a curse and a penalty for sin. The penalty is death (Genesis). God "bruise him" or "put him to grief" or "make his soul an offering for sin" to pay that penalty from Genesis that we owed. Only by Christ paying this penalty will "my righteous servant justify many."

In other places, the term "ransom" is used. The life blood is owed, and that penalty needs to be paid.
Mar 10:45 For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. The ransom is a "release price" that needs to be paid.
Of course the life blood of Christ is paid instead of the many.

This verse has a slightly different term for ransom that is more forceful. The greek word ἀνÄι (instead of) is often used in atonement verses. Here the word is a prefix of the term "ransom." Christ is an "instead of ransom."
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times;


1Pe 3:18 Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
Sin demands a penalty, it demands suffering. Christ suffered once and for all as a substitute for "us." The "us" here is the "many," or the "all" (all categories of men).

I see no other scriptural doctrine other then a penal and substitutionary atonement.

 

[francisdesales]

Concerning a penal and substitutionary atonement....
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.
God's wrath is penal. There is a curse and a penalty for sin. The penalty is death (Genesis). God "bruise him" or "put him to grief" or "make his soul an offering for sin" to pay that penalty from Genesis that we owed. Only by Christ paying this penalty will "my righteous servant justify many."

The purpose for the bruising of the Christ was not to "please" the Father, as if He was a sadistic God. Rather, the end result of the Love Shown on the Cross pleased the Father. As a result of a total self-sacrifice (love), the Son proved His obedience to the Father and perfectly showed mankind the Love He has for us, the desire to reconcile us to Him. Not that He was forced to do such a thing. But love overflows, giving of itself even unto death.

What sort of God are you proposing, that the Father was "pleased" to see His Son suffer, Mondar?

In other places, the term "ransom" is used. The life blood is owed, and that penalty needs to be paid.
Mar 10:45 For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. The ransom is a "release price" that needs to be paid. Of course the life blood of Christ is paid instead of the many.

Who is owed this ransom, Mondar? Again, I believe this is too superficial of an understanding of the use of the word ""ransom". We are "ransomed" because we now have been given the ability to unite with God. We are tranformed.

This verse has a slightly different term for ransom that is more forceful. The greek word ἀνÄι (instead of) is often used in atonement verses. Here the word is a prefix of the term "ransom." Christ is an "instead of ransom."
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times;

And this explains more fully what "ransom" means, since it is for all, not just the "elect". The gates of heaven have been opened, the same gates that were closed by the sin of Adam.

1Pe 3:18 Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
Sin demands a penalty, it demands suffering. Christ suffered once and for all as a substitute for "us." The "us" here is the "many," or the "all" (all categories of men).

IF Christ's suffering is effecacious without consideration of man, then you propose that no one will end up in hell.

Jesus says otherwise.

I see no other scriptural doctrine other then a penal and substitutionary atonement.

I will explain it better when I return. Thanks for your patience.

Regards

 

[Orion]

Who says that "sin cannot abide in God's presence"? It didn't seem to be an issue in the book of Job. God and SATAN had a conversation (two actually).

Another part of the Bible states that Satan is continually in heaven accusing us in front of God.

So where does this notion that "sin cannot abide in God's presence" come from?

Further, without some MAJOR and SIGNIFICANT change in who WE are (or rather, those who actually GO to Heaven), . . . we will still be proned to sin, and probably will. . . . . . . again, unless we are changed so much that we are no longer who we are. Think "Stepford Wives".

 

[mondar]

Who says that "sin cannot abide in God's presence"? It didn't seem to be an issue in the book of Job. God and SATAN had a conversation (two actually).

Another part of the Bible states that Satan is continually in heaven accusing us in front of God.

So where does this notion that "sin cannot abide in God's presence" come from?

Good point. Sin is permitted in Gods presence. However, God will judge Satan and punish him. On the other hand, God is still absolute in his holiness. All the other points I made still hold true. God is still "holy holy holy."

I can understand that you hate the doctrine of Gods holiness. It is that doctrine by which you will be judged in your sin.
When you said...

via some other source "bull/calf or Christ", seems to ritualistic, when God could have just as easily forgiven the sins of those who asked for it, similar to how an earthly father forgives a son/daughter when they do something wrong, . . . without the need to destroy something else in the process.

First, I notice your devaluation of Christs shed blood. Nowhere does the scripture equate the blood of bulls and goats with the blood of the savior.
Second, your statement that God should just give forgiveness without any blood payment for the sin degrades the holiness of God. God may allow Satan to enter his presence to accuse the saints, but God is still absolute in his holiness. We are to be holy as he is holy.

Further, without some MAJOR and SIGNIFICANT change in who WE are (or rather, those who actually GO to Heaven), . . . we will still be proned to sin, and probably will. . . . . . . again, unless we are changed so much that we are no longer who we are. Think "Stepford Wives".

I know nothing about "Stepford Wives." I agree that in the resurrection, our inner nature and outer physical bodies will be changed. In fact the scriptures say exactly that. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, we will all be changed. So the fact that we are "no longer who who we are." Is exactly what the scripture teaches. So what is the point?

But i think your point is that we must be changed in this life to be able to believe. The change in this life is called regeneration. The point of regeneration is that we are no longer slaves of sin; we are no longer dead in sin; we are able to believe. This is not the issue. This has to do with the biblical doctrine of election (John 6). We can do nothing about election, we can not even know who the elect are in this life. Election is not the issue, it is the revealed commands of scripture are that we are all responsible to repent and "believe."

 

[Orion]

Good point. Sin is permitted in Gods presence. However, God will judge Satan and punish him. On the other hand, God is still absolute in his holiness. All the other points I made still hold true. God is still "holy holy holy."

I can understand that you hate the doctrine of Gods holiness. It is that doctrine by which you will be judged in your sin.

I never said anything about "hating any doctrine". Not seeing the logic is FAR from "hating", so please don't accuse me of such things. I see "God's judgement" as very HUMAN in its nature. But it is understandable because HUMANS are those who try to understand such a being as God.

Anyway, so "sin IS permitted in God's presence", . . so when my pastor, this past Sunday, said "sin cannot abide in God's presence", . . . which is it?

First, I notice your devaluation of Christs shed blood. Nowhere does the scripture equate the blood of bulls and goats with the blood of the savior.
Second, your statement that God should just give forgiveness without any blood payment for the sin degrades the holiness of God. God may allow Satan to enter his presence to accuse the saints, but God is still absolute in his holiness. We are to be holy as he is holy.

The "blood of bulls and goats" was supposed to point towards Christ. . . .the whole "shedding of physical blood" as some sort of atonement for something that is SPIRITUAL, in the whole scheme of things [sin], . . . this is where I find a problem with it. There is nothing spiritual about human or animal blood. The PHYSICAL is nothing more than compound elements. SIN, and its effects are supposed to be eternal, so I do not see WHY physical blood should have played any significant role in eternal matters.

I know nothing about "Stepford Wives." I agree that in the resurrection, our inner nature and outer physical bodies will be changed. In fact the scriptures say exactly that. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, we will all be changed. So the fact that we are "no longer who who we are." Is exactly what the scripture teaches. So what is the point?

But i think your point is that we must be changed in this life to be able to believe. The change in this life is called regeneration. The point of regeneration is that we are no longer slaves of sin; we are no longer dead in sin; we are able to believe. This is not the issue. This has to do with the biblical doctrine of election (John 6). We can do nothing about election, we can not even know who the elect are in this life. Election is not the issue, it is the revealed commands of scripture are that we are all responsible to repent and "believe."

Stepford Wives is a movie where people are stripped of their humanity and now can only serve their master. There is nothing left of the individual, and they are nothing more than robots [actually ARE robots in the movie]. It is what the "master" wanted in his wife, . . . total subserviance (is that a word?), total control, no chance of being left, cheated on, or mistreated.

That is a quick synopsis of the movie, . . . but it can be applied to Heaven, in many ways. If we no longer are able to sin, are we even who we are? Will we be US in Heaven? A part of who we are includes our propensity TO fail, to LEARN from our mistakes. To grow, to prosper....... Who will we be, in Heaven?

 

[Drew]

I do not think the standard "penal / substitutionary atonement" model is correct. More specificially, I do not think that God's "system of justice" is satisfied by "having to punish someone". I believe that most evangelicals essentially believe that Jesus is punished, and that somehow satisfies such a system.

If you consider a text like Romans8:3, and take Paul at his word, it is sin, not Jesus, that is condemned on the cross:

3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,....

Jesus is not the target of God's wrath as if God has to punish someone to atone for sin. No, it is the true culprit that is condemned - sin. Of course Jesus dies, and of course it is proper for the scriptures to state that he was bruised or smitten, etc. But the nuances of Romans 8:3, not to mention other argument, show that God's real target of condemnation was sin. But, sadly, Jesus had to be the "vessel" that bore that sin. And so He dies in the violence of the condemnation of sin.