Does this hypothetical scenario include access to the tree of life? If so, then here is what Jesus said about it:

Genesis
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Here's what Jesus inspired Sister White to write about it:

Had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized. But cherubim and a flaming sword kept "the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24), and not one of the family of Adam has been permitted to pass that barrier and partake of the life-giving fruit. Therefore there is not an immortal sinner. {GC 533.3}

In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life. Deprived of this, his vitality would gradually diminish until life should become extinct. It was Satan's plan that Adam and Eve should by disobedience incur God's displeasure; and then, if they failed to obtain forgiveness, he hoped that they would eat of the tree of life, and thus perpetuate an existence of sin and misery. But after man's fall, holy angels were immediately commissioned to guard the tree of life. Around these angels flashed beams of light having the appearance of a glittering sword. None of the family of Adam were permitted to pass the barrier to partake of the life-giving fruit; hence there is not an immortal sinner. {PP 60.3}

I was pointed to Adam and Eve in Eden. They partook of the forbidden tree and were driven from the garden, and then the flaming sword was placed around the tree of life, lest they should partake of its fruit and be immortal sinners. The tree of life was to perpetuate immortality. I heard an angel ask, "Who of the family of Adam have passed the flaming sword and have partaken of the tree of life?" I heard another angel answer, "Not one of Adam's family has passed that flaming sword and partaken of that tree; therefore there is not an immortal sinner. The soul that sinneth it shall die an everlasting death--a death that will last forever, from which there will be no hope of a resurrection; and then the wrath of God will be appeased. {EW 51.2}

This seems like a play on words. The "law" of cause and effect is not an arbitrary law. It's a description of reality. Certainly reality exists because of God. The question is if there could have been a reality wherein causes could not have effects. If the answer is "yes," that establishes your point. If the answer is "no," then my point.

Cause and effect is a necessary attribute of space-time. We cannot exist without space-time, and space-time cannot exist without cause and effect.

Similarly, the fact that evil results in bad things has to do with the nature of reality. There is no reality that could exist wherein living for self would result in good. This isn't something God had to arbitrarily establish.

Similarly, agape, the love of God, results in good things. This isn't arbitrary either. In order for man to have life, peace and happiness, it's necessary that he live according to the principles of life (agape) as opposed to death (self).



"Of course"? Hard to argue with "of course." I guess I should say "of course not!"



Without condemnation, there is no need for pardon. Without light, there is no condemnation. God offered Lucifer pardon "again and again." Why? Because he had knowingly done wrong. This doesn't mean there were some things that Lucifer didn't understand, some things he was doing wrong which he wasn't convinced of. However, it does mean there were things which he *was* aware of.

Let's just think a moment of what creates a need for pardon. Say I do something wrong, which causes a rift in our relationship, something for which I need pardon from you. As long as I'm unaware of doing anything wrong, it would make no sense for you to offer to pardon me. You would offer to pardon me in the event that I was aware of doing something wrong. Continually offering pardon would be telling me that you are not holding this thing against me; as soon as I was willing to acknowledge my error, you are ready for our relationship to be re-established.

Also, it is clear simply by looking at what Lucifer was doing that he was aware of his wrong doing. He acted in secrecy, concealing his true intent. These are the actions of one who is aware of wrong doing.



There are many descriptions like this, of Lucifer acting in ways which indicate willful sin. The word "allowed" depicts a willful choice. That Lucifer had light is also clear; he had meetings with Christ, with other angels. He knew what the right thing to do was; he just didn't want to do it. He allowed his jealousy of Christ to prevail. This is willful sin.



I suppose you mean "he" not "He." That is, is Lucifer would submit.

Certainly the central question had to do with God's character. In the quote I just presented, and the others as well, there doesn't seem to be any question that Lucifer was aware of wrong doing. His actions, and the descriptions of them, make this clear. He acted in secrecy, and concealed his intent. He allowed his jealousy of Christ to prevail.

What happened was not a one-time act which caused him to be lost, but a series of events, where he continually resisted God. Each act of mercy was resisted, each offer of pardon rejected, until Lucifer so hardened his heart that he could no longer be healed.



It seems to me our views are mutually exclusive. You see everything in terms arbitrary actions of God. Sin is a violation of an established law. Pardon for willful sin requires death, something else God established. Sins of ignorance do not require death, another established law. Angels could not be pardoned at all, for willful sin, also due to something God established. Christ's death was necessary in order to pardon man, because God established that this should be the case. If a person accepts Christ, God accepts Christ's righteousness in the place of man, because He established that this would be acceptable. If not, then man will be resurrected, and he will be punished by God's inflicting pain upon him because God established that this would be just. From beginning to end your view of everything is that problems, solutions, and punishments are all simply established by God. There's no underlying reason for things being a certain way, other than this is the way God wanted them to be.

On the other hand, I see all of these things as being non-arbitrary. God created beings to love and be loved, which necessitated their having free will and conscience. If these creatures rebel against God, and choose to live contrary to the principles of love, they need to be healed, because so acting causes damage to the one who acts this way. God is willing to do anything necessary, at any cost to Himself, in order to effect healing. Those who refuse to be healed suffer because of the damage they have done to themselves.

These seem to me to be two mutually exclusive ways of looking at things. I'm not understanding your assertion that your view includes mine.

In Romans 5:9.

Regarding the texts you cited, there are too many discuss all of them, but I'll discuss the first one about the quail.



The "very great plague" with which "the Lord smote the people" was due to the people feasting without restraint. Scripture often presents God as doing that which He permits. This is simply another example of this.

As Scott, I think, pointed out, even to this day most Jews do not believe in a literal devil. Everything that happens is attributed to God. Jesus Christ showed the limitations of this view. He demonstrated that in reality, only good things come from God. All the evil that happens is due to that which God permits; He causes none of it.

The following describes this principle well:



This principle isn't limited to plants. It applies to all the bad things there are in the world.

MM, regarding the tree of life, Revelation tells us:



Therefore eating of the tree of life once is not enough. It is continually eating of it that is necessary. God did not want Adam and Eve's suffering to continue, so He, in mercy, took steps to cut short their suffering, and provided a way that could live forever without sin.

This would still be the first death. The distinctive element in the second death is the agony the sinner experiences, which is the agony Christ experienced on the cross.

Yes. Using the example I gave previously, eating carrion causes no harm to vultures, and God could have created our bodies in such a way that this practice, as well as other practices, would do us no harm. As to the human conscience, it can function in a different way than God designed it to function. Some indians and natives feel guilty if they do not kill twin children. Some religious fanatics think they are doing a service to God if they kill the “infidels,” and consider themselves honored for the opportunity of doing so. So yes, both our bodies and our minds could have been created to function in a different way. That's why I believe God used His individual discretion to create us in the exact way He created us.


Everything that is wrong needs pardon, even if it is a sin of ignorance. When the light comes, the person must repent from his/her previous practice.

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent

God told Lucifer he was wrong and needed to repent, and at the same time assured him that He would be willing to forgive him upon the condition of repentance and submission. But all this would be possible only after Lucifer saw that he was wrong.

God’s offer and assurance of pardon on condition of repentance often comes while people are still in sin. This is clearly demonstrated in the Bible.

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Isa 1:18 Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

Isa 43:24, 25 But you have burdened me with your sins, you have wearied me with your iniquities. I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.

In all the three instances, had the people already repented when God promised them pardon, or were they still sinning?


I disagree with your characterization of my view, so I will express it myself.
God is not just a Father, but the Sovereign and Ruler of the universe. The universe could not be in confusion, so yes, He established a law, the constitution of the universe. The violation of that law by a single creature affects the whole universe, therefore every violation must be judged, because the whole universe must be in agreement with God that the law is perfect, just and holy, and that any given violation of its precepts is wrong and deserves condemnation. In order to avoid any charge of lessening the guilt of sin, God received in Himself the consequences inherent to the judgment of sin, so that He could at the same time judge sin and prevent the repentant sinner from facing that judgment (that’s what the IJ is all about).
Nobody, not even those who will be lost, will have to face judgment for sins of ignorance.
As to Christ’s righteousness, His death covers, until the judgment, our sins, and His life (His righteous character) covers what still remains imperfect in the good works we produce as a result of His operation in our lives. (That’s what the opportunity of a probationary time is all about.)

I think we have discussed and re-discussed all these points before, so with this I plan to end my comments about them.

Hi Rosangela,
Are you an attorney? You completely avoided my question and changed the subject so smooth I think you must be a professional.

My question was very simple. Do you think that this earth/earthlings would self destruct if God withdrew completely His Holy Spirit? Or would some men survive and learn how to live with each other?

If you don't want to answer that is fine with me!

scott

Hi MM,

Actually I'm not talking about individual men living forever. I'm talking about the human race continuing on with people dying and being born.

No tree of life, just the way it is now. My question is very simple. If God withdraws His presence form the earth completely and takes all those who have chosen to love him off the earth then how long do you suppose earthlings would take to destroy themselves. Or do you think they would continue to have babies and die generation after generation?

This question seems to be very hard to answer! Am I not communicating very well?

scott

Your example of carrion makes no sense to the me. The fact that one creature can eat something with no side effects while another cannot does not prove that causes have effects only because God arbitrarily made this so. Similarly with the other examples. I don't see how any of these examples establishes the point that there could be a reality where causes do not have effects.

Regarding God's using His individual discretion, this seems to me to be a red herring to my point. Of course God used His discretion in creating man, and I've already stated this. My point is not that God did not use individual discretion in creating us, but that the fact that we have free wills and consciences is not due to God's using individual discretion in creating us, but is due to the fact that only beings with these attributes can be sentient beings who can love and be loved. Iow, all loving and loveable sentient beings have the characteristics of having free will and conscience.

Regarding pardon, here's the quote I've been presenting:



This says, "there is no sin." If there is no sin, there is no frown of God, and no need of pardon. Indeed, without sin, there is nothing to pardon.



It's interesting that when people think of God, they think of Him primarily as judge. Jesus referred to God as "Father" something like 177 times. He never referred to God as "judge," or "sovereign and ruler of the universe." This doesn't mean these things aren't true, of course. They just weren't important enough for Jesus to talk about.



Nor was this.



Agreed. Without light, "there is no sin."



This kind of begs the question as to what happens to our sins after the judgment. I suppose you would say they are cast on Satan(?).



I appreciate your summarization in your own words, and will try to present your view in a way that you can agree it when I do so in the future.

It seems to me that our basic difference is that you see that sin has bad results because God does something (e.g. judges sin), whereas I see that sin is of itself bad by its very nature, and for this reason has bad results. I see God as warning us of the impact of sin, as opposed to His warning us of something He will do. I see Jesus Christ as bringing us salvation by saving us from sin, as opposed to saving us from the consequences of something God would have done to us had we not accepted Him.

I see the basic problem of man being a simple one: man has believed a lie in regards to God's character. The solution is equally simple: reveal the truth about God.

Ellen White says that the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was "the revealtion of God" in order to set man right with God. This makes perfect sense to me. I don't see how this idea would make sense given your perspective.

Scott,

My answer was also very simple, but you don't seem to have understood it. If I said, "This would still be the first death," it's obvious that I believe that "this earth/earthlings would self destruct if God withdrew completely His Holy Spirit." However, what I'm saying is that the wages of sin is the second death, not the first death, and what distinguishes the second death from the first is the agony experienced by the sinner because of the weight of his guilt.