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

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

Here it is......

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



The DA quote cited says:



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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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



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

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

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


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

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

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