I disagree. God created the laws of cause and effect and, thus, established a penalty for every transgression of His laws – whether physical or moral.

“Because you do not relish a plain, simple diet, ... you are continually transgressing the laws which God has established in your system. While you do this you must suffer the penalty, for to every transgression is affixed a penalty.” {2T 66.2}

The affixed penalty for the transgression of His moral law is the judgment of sin, which is God’s manifestation of His wrath against sin, which, in turn, causes unbearable agony in the sinner. Satan spoke to God many times after his sin, but he didn’t die. Why not? Because on those occasions God did not explicitly manifest His displeasure for sin. God is restraining His indignation.



Willful sin happens when you understand that the law is just, but you refuse allegiance to it. This was the final step which brought Lucifer into rebellion.

“Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong. He saw that the divine statutes are just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels.” {PP 39}

“Evil originated with the rebellion of Lucifer. It was brought into heaven when he refused allegiance to God's law. Satan was the first lawbreaker.” {RH, June 4, 1901 par. 3}


First, before willfully rejecting the law your sin is, to a greater or lesser degree, a sin of ignorance.

Second, God can offer pardon without the sinner being exposed to the death penalty only if the sin wasn’t willful.

“God declared that the rebellious should remain in Heaven no longer. Their high and happy state had been held upon condition of obedience to the law which God had given to govern the high order of intelligences. But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress his law. {1SP 22.3}


I will never be able to agree with this definition you insist in giving. Obviously the wrath of God is His indignation against sin. It’s directed towards sin, not towards people. When the limit of God’s forbearance is reached, He may give individuals over to the results of their choice, but this is not at all the definition of God’s wrath.

“In surrendering his spotless soul a living sacrifice, Jesus was bearing the sin of the world; he was enduring the curse of the law; he was vindicating the justice of God. Separation from his Father, the punishment for transgression, was to fall upon him, in order to magnify God's law and testify to its immutability. ... The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin.” {ST, December 9, 1897 par. 6}

“As One who had taken upon himself the nature of man, he [Christ] must suffer the consequences of man's sin; he must endure the wrath of God against transgression.” {RH, July 7, 1910 par. 7}

With what? When you start out a response with "I disagree," it's really hard to know what you're talking about. I would have to assume, by guessing, that you disagree with the last thing I said, which is that if you smoke you get cancer, not as a penalty, but because smoking causes damage to your body. It's hard for me to see how anyone could disagree with this though.



Did God do something to make lying have a penalty? Is there any conceivable universe that God could have created in which lying would have been a good thing? Or stealing? Or having any gods before Him?

I don't see why God would have to life a finger to establish any penalty against any of these things, any more than He would have to lift a finger to establish a penalty for smoking cigarettes or running red lights or jumping off of cliffs. These are all things which are bad for you.

Things that are harmful are such because of their nature. Anything that is done for self is harmful. These things go against the "law of life for the universe."

DA chapter 1 describes this law. It is a law based on receiving from God, and giving back, either to Him or to one's neighbor. This law of life is reflected in the 10 commandments, which are a transcript of God's character.

This law was broken in heaven, by a creature who invented a new law, the law of self-love. This new law breaks the law of God, and results in death. Not because God arbitrarily established a penalty for it, but because it is not the law of life for the universe. There's simply no way that living for self could ever be a good thing, nor anything that flows from this principle. Such could only ever lead to death. Not because of any action of God, but because that's the way things are.

The very nature of living for self is that it leads to death. The very nature of living for God is that it leads to life (John 17:3).



Isn't it obvious that this penalty is not an arbitrary one? This quote is saying the same thing I've been saying. If you live unhealthfully, you will suffer the consequences. Not because God has affixed a penalty for acting in such a way, but because this is the natural consequence of such an action. Similarly with self-sacrificing love, to live by this principle is life, just as living for self is death.



If God did nothing to punish those who break the law of God, what do you think would happen? Do you think that living by the principles of Satan could result in anything other than misery, suffering and death?

Is the reason people who serve God experience joy because God arbitrary gives them joy if they serve Him? Or is there something good about serving God, which in its very nature results in joy?



I would agree that God is doing something which artificially keeps Satan alive. For example, in DA 764 it says that if God were to have allowed Satan to reap the full results of his sin (from memory; right thought if not exact words) he and his followers would have perished. So God is doing something to keep Satan alive even though, by all rights, as one who lives by the principles of death, he should be dead. However, I would say that it is not God's indignation of sin which causes death, but rather that sin itself results in death. The sting of death is sin, not God's indignation. God is indignant against sin precisely because is causes death.

Sin is not innocuous.



Willful sin happens when you do something you know is wrong. One need not know anything about the law to know one has done something wrong.



You wrote (in post #100111):



God gave Lucifer the opportunity to confess his sin, which is, to use your words, his willful rejection of the law. This is without Christ's having died.

Above you wrote:



Is this really what you meant to say? This doesn't seem to make sense. Why would God's offering pardon result in the sinner being exposed to the death penalty?



I wouldn't expect so, because it is not consistent with the idea you have of imposed penalties. However, if we look at how the wrath of God occurs in Scripture, one can see over and over again that this is what it means. In the Romans passage I cited, it said that God gave them over at least 3 times. Here are some more Scriptures which bring out the same principle:



God's wrath is manifest by the following:
a."I will leave him."
b."I will hide my face."
c.He will be devoured
d.It will be said, "Have not all these evils come upon me because God is not with me?"

I looked at several versions, but like the Portuguese the best. Here's another version for the benefit of non-Portuguese speakers.



Here's another text which illustrates this principle:



Here's another one:



I could cite many more. Over and over we see that God's wrath is manifest by His "delivering them to trouble," "hiding My face," and so forth. In the Jeremiah passage, it says that God will slay in His anger and wrath. How did He do so? By delivering up Israel to the Babylonians.

In the Great Controversy, a whole chapter is devoted to the destruction of Jerusalem, and we see this principle explained in great detail. I'll quote a minimal portion:



This explains the principles very clearly.



God is indignant against sin because of its hideousness. When the limit of God's forbearance is reached (which simply means that people have so hardened their hearts that they no longer respond to His Spirit, as explained in the GC passage cited above; God doesn't lose His patience) God's wrath is manifest by His giving up, or delivering, the object of His wrath to the result of their choice.

Jesus said that if one wishes to know the truth, He will know it. So much is working against our having a right view of God. This has been Satan's primary tactic. From the very beginning, the way he attracted converts was by misrepresenting God's character as being like his own. This is still his chief method.

Regarding the meaning of sacrifice, the primary purpose is set forth here:



The word "reasonable" has to do with "reason." That is, it doesn't mean "reasonable" in the sense that a reasonable person would act this way, but that if we reason things out, we will see that this is what we should do.

Anyway, the thought here is simple. We should give our all to God. The giving of the sacrifice represented that one was giving oneself to one's deity. It was an act of dedication. All religions understood this.

The unique thing about Judaism/Christianity (in the true sense) is that our sacrifice is but a faint echo of His sacrifice. The wonderful truth we learn through the sacrifices is that God gave His all for us. The gift of the sacrifice was a recognition that God, in giving us His Son, was giving us His all, and an act of dedication to return the favor.

This thought is also presented by Paul in 2 Cor.



Another meaning inherent in the sacrifice is that sin kills. One question that needs to be carefully considered is whether or not sin is lethal. Would sin be OK if only God were not against it? Is it only because God doesn't like it that sin is a problem? Or is sin, of itself, deadly, and *that's* the reason God is against it?

If the engine of your car was built to take gasoline, and you use, instead, alcohol as its fuel, you will ruin it. But you can make an engine that works with both gasoline and alcohol, like we have here in Brazil, and the engine will suffer no damage with either of these fuels. I don’t think evil would ever be a good thing, but it would be entirely possible for God to have created things in a such a way that a creature could cause a lot of harm to others and never be bothered by his/her conscience, never feel guilty, never suffer emotionally, never be hated but, instead, admired by others – in other words, our minds and feelings could work differently than they do now.


Can’t you see that God made the law of cause and effects? Our bodies could simply have been created in a different way. Eating carrion does no harm to black vultures, but what would it do to you? Radiation does no harm to a cockroach, but what will it do to you?
It’s obvious that God affixed a penalty for acting in certain ways.


Christian joy is a fruit of the Spirit. Most people in this world find no joy in serving God.


If sin in itself caused death, Satan would have died long ago.


No. Willful sin happens when you do something defiantly, knowing it’s sin. You understand the reason for God's requirements, admit their justice, but refuse to submit to them.


Your premise is wrong, so your conclusion is wrong. Pay attention to what I wrote (1) and what you are saying I wrote (2):
(1) To sin willfully is to reject the law.
(2) To sin is to willfully reject the law.

Not every sin is willful.


What I meant was that Satan wasn’t yet exposed to the death penalty when God offered him pardon, because he hadn’t yet willfuly rejected the law.


The fact is that God is indignant against sin, and when He manifests this indignation, this causes unbearable agony in the sinner. This was what Jesus felt, and it was because of this that He died.

Two things I'd like to note:

1.I'm using the word "arbitrary" and "arbitrarily" everywhere that follows here in the sense of "by individual discretion" as opposed to "capriciously."

2.I'll treat Satan's situation separately (next post).



This wouldn't be possible if you took into account God's character, would it? That is, such a creature you are describing would be Satanic, and God couldn't create a Satanic creature, could He? So He could no more create the creature you've described than He could lie, for example. The Scripture tells us that "God cannot lie." So we could conclude, similarly, that God could not create a creature unlike Himself in the manner you described.

So if we consider creatures that can love and be loved, created in His image, we would necessarily conclude that such creatures could have been created no differently than God created them, with consciences and free will. Thus the penalty associated with breaking the law is not an arbitrary or imposed one, but simply the only way that things can be. Just as God cannot lie, so no creature that He created could lie without suffering consequences, not because God imposed an artificial penalty, but because lying is intrinsically bad, and no creature created in God's image, with free will and conscience, could lie without adverse consequences.



It's obvious He didn't. It's obvious that these consequences are not arbitrarily affixed but are natural consequences, the only way things could be. It's obvious that opining "it's obvious" doesn't add any strength to one's argument.

Even if our bodies could be created in a different way, that would have no impact on the point of our conversation. I suppose radiation has no effect on angels, yet they can no more lie than we can without adverse consequences. This isn't because God has arbitrarily affixed a penalty, but because when one lies, bad things happen.

Lies lead to a lack of trust when the truth is discovered. This isn't because God made lies in such a way that they destroy confidence. Lies are intrinsically bad and have negative consequences. They are contrary to the "law of life for the universe."

Let's consider this law a bit. The law of life for the universe is to receive from God and give to others, either God or one's neighbor. Why is this the law of life? Is it because God has arbitrarily affixed a reward for so doing? Or is it because love promotes life by its very nature? I believe it's the latter.

We have two different principles we are dealing with. One is love, such love as God has, disinterested, self-sacrificing love. This principle is life-giving. Another principle is that of living for self. This principle is life-destroying. Not because God made things this way, because to assert this is to assert there is some other way God could have made things. But there isn't. Not and be true to His character.

Therefore God's purpose is to warn us of the effects of choosing the wrong principle to govern one's life by. Not because God has arbitrarily affixed penalties that He must enforce because of His character, but because these principles are life-destroying. The enemy, the problem, is sin. Not God's indignation against sin, nor the penalties God enacts against sin, but sin itself.



My point had nothing to do with this. My point was that the joy one feels in serving God (assuming one feels joy in so doing) is not something God artificially gives to certain ones as a reward, but the natural consequence of so doing. For example, Jesus said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." This isn't because God does something artificial to make this so, but because it really is more blessed to give than to receive; this is following the "law of life for the universe."



Satan should have died long ago, but God has taken action to prevent this from happening:



The very reason God did not allow Satan to reap the full result of his sin is precisely because had He done so, Satan would have died, but it would not have been apparent that this was "the inevitable result of sin." This is exactly what I've been saying, that death is the inevitable result of sin.



It is enough to do something you know is wrong. Romans 1 and 2 deal with this. For example:






I see two problems with framing things in this way. The first problem is that is obscures the real issue, which is that sin inevitably results in death. The second problem is the focus on God's indignation against sin as opposed to simply focusing on God's character of love. An important principle is that the same thing that gives life to the righteous slays the wicked. The following brings out this principle:



Note that the same thing that is life to one group is death to the other. I've been highlighting this principle in pointing out that the death of the wicked is not due to God's arbitrarily treating them differently because the agreed to follow some rule. Rather God reveals His character of love to both the righteous and the wicked. The difference is with themselves. For one group, this revelation is life, while for the other it is death.

The same principle is brought out here:



The glory of God is His character. The wicked place themselves so out of harmony with God that His mere presence is unpleasant to them, to put it lightly. We see the same principle in the DA 108 quote above. Only the pure in heart could abide in Jesus' presence. Remember the cleansing of the temple? That was the same principle.

In summary, where I see the crux of our difference is that I see the following taking place:

a.God created beings to love and to be loved.
b.Doing so necessitated creating creatures with conscience and free will.
c.Acting in accordance with the principles of God's government, which is to say in harmony with His character, is the way to life, peace and happiness.
d.This is a consequence of so doing, not an arbitrary reward given by God.
e.Similarly choosing to act out of harmony with the principles of God's government, contrary to the principles of the law, which is a transcript of His character, is the way to suffering, misery and death.
f.This is a consequence of so doing, not an arbitrary penalty given by God.

Otoh, you appear to see both these things as happening by virtue of arbitrary applied rewards and penalties.

Regarding whether or not Lucifer willfully sinned, it's enough to simply consider his actions:

Leaving his place in the immediate presence of the Father, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. He worked with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealed his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God. He began to insinuate doubts concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that though laws might be necessary for the inhabitants of the worlds, angels, being more exalted, needed no such restraint, for their own wisdom was a sufficient guide. They were not beings that could bring dishonor to God; all their thoughts were holy; it was no more possible for them than for God Himself to err. The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor. If this prince of angels could but attain to his true, exalted position, great good would accrue to the entire host of heaven; for it was his object to secure freedom for all. But now even the liberty which they had hitherto enjoyed was at an end; for an absolute Ruler had been appointed them, and to His authority all must pay homage. Such were the subtle deceptions that through the wiles of Lucifer were fast obtaining in the heavenly courts.

There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer's envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer's deceptions.

Taking advantage of the loving, loyal trust reposed in him by the holy beings under his command, he had so artfully instilled into their minds his own distrust and discontent that his agency was not discerned. Lucifer had presented the purposes of God in a false light--misconstruing and distorting them to excite dissent and dissatisfaction. He cunningly drew his hearers on to give utterance to their feelings; then these expressions were repeated by him when it would serve his purpose, as evidence that the angels were not fully in harmony with the government of God. While claiming for himself perfect loyalty to God, he urged that changes in the order and laws of heaven were necessary for the stability of the divine government. Thus while working to excite opposition to the law of God and to instill his own discontent into the minds of the angels under him, he was ostensibly seeking to remove dissatisfaction and to reconcile disaffected angels to the order of heaven. While secretly fomenting discord and rebellion, he with consummate craft caused it to appear as his sole purpose to promote loyalty and to preserve harmony and peace.

The spirit of dissatisfaction thus kindled was doing its baleful work. While there was no open outbreak, division of feeling imperceptibly grew up among the angels. There were some who looked with favor upon Lucifer's insinuations against the government of God. Although they had heretofore been in perfect harmony with the order which God had established, they were now discontented and unhappy because they could not penetrate His unsearchable counsels; they were dissatisfied with His purpose in exalting Christ. These stood ready to second Lucifer's demand for equal authority with the Son of God.

I honestly don't know how anyone could read this and not comprehend that Lucifer was willfully sinning here. I think you could give this passage to anybody to read with no dog in the hunt, so to speak, say any non-SDA, and ask the question, "Was Lucifer willfully sinning?" and 100 out of 100 people would answer, "yes."

That's the point. God used His individual discretion in making creatures who would experience joy, peace, and love in following His ways, and who would experience the opposite emotions by following selfish ways. He made our minds to function in this way. Therefore, He affixed rewards for good and penalties for evil. The same is true about the laws that govern our bodies.
You seem to think it is a bad thing to use individual discretion. What is bad is to act capriciously, and it is this that Ellen White says that God doesn’t do. She uses the word “arbitrary” in this sense.


I say the same thing to you.


Of course it has an impact, for we are discussing both physical and moral laws.


Bad things may happen to others, but who said bad things always happen to the person who lies? What were the bad things that happened to Satan because he lied to our first parents? He only will face bad consequences because he will have to face judgment.


No. Romans 1 and 2 are not speaking about willful sin. Heb. 10:26, 27 is:

“For if we sin willfully after having received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.”

A willful sin is a sin of presumption. This passage explains better what a willful sin is:

“Soon after the return into the wilderness, an instance of Sabbath violation occurred, under circumstances that rendered it a case of peculiar guilt. The Lord's announcement that He would disinherit Israel had roused a spirit of rebellion. One of the people, angry at being excluded from Canaan, and determined to show his defiance of God's law, ventured upon the open transgression of the fourth commandment by going out to gather sticks upon the Sabbath. ... The act of this man was a willful and deliberate violation of the fourth commandment--a sin, not of thoughtlessness or ignorance, but of presumption. ... The sins of blasphemy and willful Sabbathbreaking received the same punishment, being equally an expression of contempt for the authority of God. {PP 408, 409}


But God’s indignation against sin is part of God’s character of love. God is both just and merciful, and these are not mutually exclusive, that is, God has to be both just and merciful simultaneously. Therefore, He must at the same time punish sin and pardon the penitent. So He punished sin in Himself in order to be able to pardon the penitent.

“God will soon vindicate His justice before the universe. His justice requires that sin shall be punished; His mercy grants that sin shall be pardoned through repentance and confession.” {UL 49.5}


First, I'm not sure the whole quote refers to the period before Lucifer's rebellion, for Ellen White goes back and forth in her descriptions of Lucifer's sin.
Second, before his fall Lucifer was undoubtedly sinning, but, as I said previously, a sin becomes willful after a sinner has received a knowledge of the truth. So, when Satan understood the reason for God's requirements, admitted their justice, but refused to submit to them, he sinned willfully. Before understanding the subject completely, his sin was, partially at least, a sin of ignorance.

“But such efforts as infinite love and wisdom only could devise, were made to convince him of his error. His disaffection was proved to be without cause, and he was made to see what would be the result of persisting in revolt. Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong. He saw that the divine statutes are just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels.” {PP 39}

Let's look at DA 764:



Let's consider her point here. She says:

1.This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. (this could be capricious, or individual discretion so far. Let's look at the following points.)

2.The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.

3.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.

4."All they that hate Me love death." ("love" means "choose" in the orig. language).

5.They receive the results of their own choice.

These points bring out repeatedly that the wicked suffer because of something they themselves have done. This is in contrast to their suffering because of something God does to them. She continues to make this point in the following paragraph:



6.Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished.

7.It would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin.

The point is that the wicked receive the result of their choice, as opposed to its being something God does to them. In fact, the point is made that God could not all this to happen too soon, at the beginning, because it would have been misunderstood as something God was doing to them as opposed to the inevitable result of sin.

If her point were that God was not being capricious, she would have said things like God only did this to them after careful deliberation, etc. She wouldn't be arguing that God wasn't doing it to them but rather their destruction was due to their own actions.

I don't think there's anything wrong with using individual discretion in general. Clearly God used individual discretion in creation. To be true to His character, He had to create beings with free will and conscience, but how many of these beings and what they would look like and all the other characteristics they have were matters of individual discretion.

However, if we misunderstand something to be due to individual discretion given as a penalty or reward when it's simply a consequence of a given action, that can be very problematic. It can lead us to think that we need to behave in a certain way in order to avoid being judged negatively by God, as opposed to behaving in a certain way because it is the right way to behave. It can lead us to believe that our problem is with God's indignation of sin as opposed to sin. It can lead us to be afraid of what God will do to us as opposed to being afraid of what sin will do to us.

God warns us of the dangers of sin because He loves us. His indignation of sin is because of the harm it does to us, which is because He loves us.



Liars are among the people who do not inherit eternal life. Scripture tells us bad things happen to liars.



Sin is not innocuous. It has a negative impact upon the sinner always. The impact may not be clear immediately, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

The argument of the enemy is that sin is basically not a bad thing. It's just that God has a thing against it. If it weren't for God, Satan and those who follow him would be just fine. But this is a lie. Sin is always bad, and always has negative results against both those who practice it and those who are sinned against. Because of the grace of God, these results are not necessarily immediately recognized. But, again, that doesn't mean the results are not there.



Paul's point is that all are guilty before God. Only willful sin incurs guilt. Romans 1 says that God's wrath is manifest against those Paul is talking about. You have repeatedly pointed out that God's wrath is only manifest against those who willfully sin. Therefore if you are correct in so affirming, those whom Paul is addressing are willfully sinning.



Certainly. God loves His creatures, so whatever harms them causes Him indignation. We may have this same righteousness indignation against sin as well. For example, we may hate drugs because what they do to a loved one.



Not only are they not mutually exclusive, they are not even contradictory. They work in harmony. For example:



True justice is manifest in what? In mercy and compassion. God is merciful because He is just. Justice demands mercy and compassion, as indicated by the fact that this is how it is administered.



Sin is not a thing which can be punished. Sin can no more be punished than a car or a rock or a twig can be punished. Only sentient beings can be punished.

Justice is not administered by punishment, but by mercy. This is seen, for example, in Christ's treatment of the woman caught in adultery. It is also seen in the parable of the prodigal soon. It is also seen in the story about the publican and the pharisee.

I can think of no story Christ taught where punishment had to occur in order for mercy and compassion to be given. Can you?



Since sentient beings can be punished, this must be seen as a metaphor. Who is punished, and what is the punishment? The wicked are punished, and their punishment is death. Why must they die? Because that is what they have chosen (see DA 764). Why does God's justice demand that they be punished? Because this is what they have chosen. Death is their just dessert. It would be unjust of God to give to the wicked something they have not chosen. That would not be respecting their free will.



According to the Spirit of Prophecy, God does not remove every possibility of doubt from us. He gives us evidence upon which to base our decisions. For example:



It has never been the case that a sin is only a willful sin if there is not the least shred of a possibility of doubt that one is doing wrong, which seems to be what you are suggesting. Virtually nothing would be a willful sin under the doctrine that it's only willful if there is no possibility of ignorance involved. Just look at Eve's sin, for example. It would certainly be difficult to argue that her actions had no degree of ignorance attached to them. It would also be hard to argue that Eve had a better idea of what she was doing that Lucifer did in the passage I cited.

Considering Lucifer's experience, as soon as he became upset with God because he was not included in the counsel that Christ was, it was explained to him why he was not included. Yet envy and hatred remained in his heart. He continued to feel resentment against Christ. This was willful sin! This is way before even the things I quoted, which are also before his rebellion.

You have asserted that EGW goes back in forth in her description of what happened with Lucifer. What's your basis for this? It seems to me the natural reading of the description in PP is chronological. Why should it be read in some other way?

The passage itself indicates that Satan's actions were willful, and not done in ignorance. This is very easy to see, hence my assertion that 100 out of 100 non-SDA's would see in the description given that Lucifer was willfully sinning. Here's an example:



Here the words "instill," "ostensibly" and "consummate craft" indicate both willfulness and a lack of ignorance on Lucifer's part.

Lucifer's fall was a protracted one. It began with resentment, and continued to resistance, rejection and rebellion. All along the way, God was concerned for Lucifer. He counseled with him and warned him of the results of what he was doing. He offered him pardon again and again. Even after the description I cited God offered to pardon him yet again, as he had not yet been banished from heaven.

Lucifer was lost not because he committed one willful sin, but because he committed so many willful sins repeatedly (for example, every time God offered Lucifer pardon and Lucifer refused it, that in itself was a willful sin, as God would not have offered Lucifer pardon for something Lucifer was not aware was wrong) that he eventually hardened his heart to the point to where he could not be healed. He lost both the desire and the capability to respond to truth.

She’s using the word “arbitrary” not exactly in relation to God, but to His power. We can speak of a capricious power (a Google search yielded 4820 entrances), but hardly would we speak of a power which uses individual discretion. Besides, the connotation is clearly negative, and using individual discretion doesn’t have a negative connotation per se – the opposite is true.


God must use His individual discretion in order to give them the result of their choice, as opposed to let them continue living in sin for ever.


That’s the point. It has a negative impact because God created us in such a way that evil would have a negative impact on us. It’s not just a “natural result.” I happened to read a passage this morning which speaks exactly about this.

“That which we do to others, whether it be good or evil, will surely react upon ourselves, in blessing or in cursing. Whatever we give, we shall receive again. The earthly blessings which we impart to others may be, and often are, repaid in kind. What we give does, in time of need, often come back to us in fourfold measure in the coin of the realm. But, besides this, all gifts are repaid, even in this life, in the fuller inflowing of His love, which is the sum of all heaven's glory and its treasure. And evil imparted also returns again. Everyone who has been free to condemn or discourage, will in his own experience be brought over the ground where he has caused others to pass; he will feel what they have suffered because of his want of sympathy and tenderness. It is the love of God toward us that has decreed this. He would lead us to abhor our own hardness of heart and to open our hearts to let Jesus abide in them. And thus, out of evil, good is brought, and what appeared a curse becomes a blessing.” {MB 136}


OK, Romans 1 and 2 don’t use specifically the term “willful sin,” but you are right that these chapters are also speaking about willful sin. You will observe that the truth stands that a willful sin is a sin involving rejection of light. Just read Romans 1:18-22.


If the truth is clearly understood and then rejected or set aside, this is a willful sin. It’s very simple. No need to complicate it.

“For if we sin willfully after having received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.”

“We shall not be held accountable for the light that has not reached our perception, but for that which we have resisted and refused. A man could not apprehend the truth which had never been presented to him, and therefore could not be condemned for light he had never had.”--5BC 1145 (1893). {LDE 218.2}

“The degree of light given is the measure of responsibility. The path to heaven will be made plain to all who are faithful in the use of the knowledge they may obtain in regard to the future life. . . . Look at the first act of transgression in the Garden of Eden. To Adam and Eve were plainly stated the laws of Paradise, with the penalty for willful disobedience. They disobeyed, and disobedience brought its sure result. Death entered the world. ... Justice requires that men shall have light, and it also requires that he who refuses to walk in the Heaven-given light, the giving of which cost the death of the Son of God, must receive punishment. {HP 153.2, 3}

You must not only receive light but understand it.

About Lucifer. For a long time he was deluded, thinking that he was right and God was wrong. It was when he was convinced that it was he who was in the wrong and that God was, after all, right, and then refused to submit to God’s authority, that he sinned willfully.

“But such efforts as infinite love and wisdom only could devise, were made to convince him of his error. His disaffection was proved to be without cause, and he was made to see what would be the result of persisting in revolt. Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong. He saw that the divine statutes are just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels.” {PP 39}


Yes, the story of His crucifixion! Christ could show compassion to people and forgive their sins exactly because He was going to suffer, in their stead, the punishment for those sins.

Now, Tom, under your view, if there is repentance on the sinner’s part and God is willing to forgive (and He is), what is the need for Christ’s intercession?

“Jesus is the only hope of the soul. ... The moment the sinner lays hold of Christ by faith, his sins are no longer upon him. Christ stands in the sinner's place, and declares, ‘I have borne his guilt, I have been punished for his transgressions, I have taken his sins, and put My righteousness upon him.’” {PrT, January 30, 1890 par. 6}

What does the bolded part mean to you?

(You don't need to answer this post point by point, for we have already discussed most of what is being discussed here, but I would like to discuss this last point.)

???

"Power" is simply force; it's something this a sentient being exercises. Being arbitrary is not a property of power, but of people. You have to have a mind to be arbitrary. Power has no mind. This applies whether "arbitrary" has the meaning of either "individual discretion" or "capricious."

The phrase "capricious power" is referring to the entity exercising the power, not the power itself. It is because this is easily understood that it is not necessary to explain one's usage of the phrase. For example, if I said, "this is an egregious example of capricious power" it is hardly necessary for me to clarify "I'm talking about the person exercising capricious power, not the power itself being capricious."



Why do you read it as clearly negative? I don't see anything suggesting that anywhere in the passage. She simply explaining what happens when the wicked are destroyed. They are destroyed because of their own choice, not as a result of something God does to them. She makes this point over and over again in these 2 paragraphs. It seems clear to me that she is explaining *why* this is so, and why it is that God acted the way He did (e.g., why didn't He allow Satan to die right away?)



It looks like you're argument here is based upon there being a negative connotation in the passage. Unless you are not basing your conclusion that the connotation here is negative entirely on the use of the word "arbitrary," you're using a circular argument.

If one simply looks at the context, as I laid it out, it's clear to see her argument:

1.This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. (this could be capricious, or individual discretion so far. Let's look at the following points.)

2.The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.

3.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.

4."All they that hate Me love death." ("love" means "choose" in the orig. language).

5.They receive the results of their own choice.

6.Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished.

7.It would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin.

Isn't it clear she is making the point that the wicked's destruction is due to their own choice? This is the whole context of the passage. The passage is not dealing with God's being capricious, but with the destruction of the wicked being due to the result of the wicked's own choice, as opposed to something God is doing to them.



The inevitable result of sin is death. God has to do something to prevent this from happening. Thus we read:



When God does leave Satan and his host to reap the full result of their sin, then they perish. As long as He doesn't leave them to reap this result, they don't. So God does something to keep them from perishing, but does nothing to cause them to perish, other than to leave them to suffer the consequences of their sin, which is death, because "the inevitable result of sin is death."

A key point to not here is that God *leaves* them to reap the full result of their sin. To leave is a passive action, not an active one.

More later (to cover the rest of your post).