I agree this will cause agony, but there's more that's happening than just this:



This is something which happens at the judgment itself. The wicked voluntarily choose to be excluded from heaven. Why? Because they hate it.

This looks to contradict DA 764:



Also GC 543 (actually much of this whole chapter addresses this).

A large part of the GC has to do with who is responsible for sin and death. Satan argues that God is responsible. I believe the judgement will show that God is entirely innocent.

Here "arbitrary" would be "tyrannical", since it's the opposite of what God's sovereignty involves. Furthermore, moral and natural laws are not self-regulating: God, who created them - including the principle that sin is selfish, exercised his sovereignty over his creatures' destinies. Sin faces a sad judgement, but you sound like you don't think God judges sin at all - just withdraws himself from proceedings after sustaining sinners during grace's probation?

This cause and effect of sin you lean on is a choice of God: it didn't become true by itself, AND God is just in setting it up.

Of course God had to allow sin's invention as the risk of creating free choice, but God rightly takes issue with persistent sinful free choice after his truth has been revealed and rejected.

You do realise you're flogging a dead horse? - we agree with your point. Your take on God's justice though is unclear, as you appear to leave it out but protest that you don't when we note such appearance....

No, here would be "individual discretion" because that's what the context supports. She is not arguing that God is not tyrannical. She is arguing that He does not cause the death of the wicked, but instead, it is something they themselves choose. This is easily seen by considering the paragraph:

1.The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.
2.When one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.
3.They receive the results of their own choice.
4.By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire.

Every sentence is making this point. Now if her argument were that God destroys the wicked, but such destruction is not arbitrary (i.e. tyrannical) she would have instead made arguments as to why this destruction was a reasonable thing for God to do. But that's not her argument at all.

If you continue to the next paragraph, one sees her line of thought continues. She explains that had God "left" Satan to reap the consequences of his sin, a doubt as to God's goodness would have remained. Why? Because His actions would have been misunderstood.

What action is she talking about? "Leaving" Satan to reap the result of his choice. Not "causing" Satan to reap the result, but "leaving" him to do so.

She calls death the "inevitable result of sin." It could hardly be called that if the reason sinners die is because God, rather than sin, causes them to die.

Sin is not bad because God set things up this way. Sin is not something God simply dislikes and decides to punish for that reason.



The problem is not that God takes issue with it, but it is lethal. God takes issue with it *because* it is lethal. Even if God did not take issue with it, it would still be lethal. Because God loves us, He warns us of the lethality of sin, and provides a way by which we may be healed/saved from it.



If you agreed with my point, you wouldn't assert things contrary to it, would you?



It looks like you are defining "leave out" as "have a different point of view regarding it than I do." As I have pointed out, I started a thread regarding God's justice, which was discussed at length. I've also quoted the following several times:

If the governor of a State should indiscriminately pardon all offenses against the law, it would absolutely abolish all restraint of law. The motive in his mind might be love, but that love would be so unwisely and imprudently manifested that it would lead to anarchy and misery. The same is true of the Governor of the universe. His love and his wisdom are one. His pardoning power must be so exercised in “wisdom and prudence” as to lead men to unity and joy, and not to anarchy and misery, else it is not love....

Sin is secession from the government of God. Satan seceded, and sought to exalt his throne above that of God. Sinners are those who have joined themselves to Satan’s forces in this secession. God, in infinite love, sends his own and only Son to put down the rebellion. He cannot pardon those who are still in rebellion, for this would but justify the rebellion and dishonor the law, and so perpetuate and multiply the misery. But through Jesus this rebellion is finally to be put down entirely. “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head.” O’er every
hilltop of earth and heaven, where for a short time there has waved the black standard of the man of sin, there shall forever float the white pennon of the Prince of Peace.

Every one who lays down his arms and surrenders his opposing will to God has the promise of pardon. This pardon God can grant, and not dishonor his law. Yea, more, it is through this pardon that the mercy and love of God’s law and government are revealed,---a love that only commanded the right way, not to be arbitrary and domineering, but that men might be happy,---a love that when men repent of the wrong, and turn back their hearts toward the broken law, is ever willing to forgive the past and give power for future obedience. It is thus that God can be just, and still the justifier of those who believe on Jesus.2 It is thus that faith in Jesus exalts the law of God to the highest heavens, and establishes it forever.

The cross of Calvary, to the whole universe of intelligent beings, is the greatest demonstration that ever has been or ever can be given that God’s law is eternal and universal, and yet that his love is infinite; reaching down with tender, fatherly longing to lift up the lowest transgressor. In fact, his love is his law, and the law is unchangeable because his love is from everlasting to everlasting. When men behold this, they are led to repent of past transgressions, and to pray for power for future obedience. It is thus that Christ is exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.3 It is thus that the atonement is made, and rebellious men are led back into unity with God and with one another.(God is Love)

Another related thought by the same author:

And what is justice, the justice of God, but another name for his love? Our partial love may make us unjust. If I love A more than B, I may be unjust to B, but this injustice is not the result of my love for A, but rather of the imperfection of my love in its lack toward B. The moment we conceive of a love that is infinite and all-embracing, that moment we see that that love includes justice. Can he who loves all his children be unjust to any of them? Thus justice is love, and he, the dread One, holding the balances in his hands, is he beyond whose love and care we cannot stray, though we may often grieve his Spirit.

And what shall I say of the wrath of God, spoken of so many times in the Scripture? Jesus Christ came to reveal the Father. There never was a being on this earth who loved the sinner as did he, and never one who so perfectly and completely hated the sin. His love for the sinner was as infinite as his hatred for the sin. In him is revealed a God who ever and always completely separates between the sinner and the sin. He hates the sin, because it is the enemy of the sinner, whom he loves. If I have a friend, and know of an assassin who is lurking for his life, the measure of my love for that friend is the measure of my hatred for that assassin.

Sin is the only enemy of the human race. It lurks insidiously behind ten thousand beautiful forms of pleasure, and ever lurks with murderous intent. All God’s hatred is his hatred for sin. All his wrath is his wrath against sin. This hatred and wrath are simply his love for the sinner, whom sin is seeking to destroy. The plan of redemption is God’s effort, by revealing his infinite love, to separate the sin from the sinner, so that sin may be destroyed, misery banished, and the universe clean, and yet the sinner saved.

Only those who finally and inseparably connect themselves with sin, so that God cannot destroy the one without destroying the other, will have to drink God’s wrath against sin. Love takes no pleasure in this even. “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?”

Thus all the attributes of God are traced back to the one attribute, and “God is love.” “Love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love.” There is nothing in God but love, for love includes everything good. His love reaches to the outermost rim of his mighty universe, and takes in its constant care all his creatures, never leaving them for a moment, however much they may grieve him to his heart.

I realize the quotes from my previous post are rather long, so I'll repeat one paragraph:



This paragraph explains how God can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus in harmony with the principles I've been suggesting.

What I'm saying is that you want to exempt God from any responsibility but your argument doesn't do that at all.


No, of course not. Human beings have already jumped (when they sinned) and are already in the net (the grace of God), but God will remove it on the day of judgment. This is the analogy which corresponds to what you affirm. If you could exempt from responsibility the one who removes the net from below someone who has jumped, then your model could exempt God from responsibility. But that is not the case.


You speak as if these two things were mutually exclusive, but they aren't.

"A great price has been paid for the redemption of man, and none who are untruthful, impure, or unrighteous can enter the kingdom of heaven. If men do not make Christ their personal Saviour, and become true and pure and holy, there is only one course for the Lord to pursue. He must destroy the sinner, for evil natures cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Thus it is that sin, if not destroyed, will destroy the sinner, just as Satan designed it should." {16MR 273.3}

Here Ellen White says that God destroys the sinner and that sin destroys the sinner. Both are true. God will destroy sin, and sinners will perish in its destruction. So, when someone chooses sin he is choosing to be destroyed.

Sure it does. The EGW quote says the destruction of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary choice of God, but due to the choice of the wicked. Understanding "arbitrary" to mean "individual discretion," gives my argument.

Actually I don't think I personally used the word "responsibility." (although it might have been used in responding to someone). What I said was simply that the death of the wicked is due to their own choice, not God's. IOW they die because of the choice they made, not because God does something to them arbitrarily to make them die. This is what I've been arguing.

In regards to responsibility, one could always make the argument that God is responsible to some extent for everything that happens since He created everything. I haven't been discussing this at all.



This seems overly complicated. The Spirit of Prophecy says the destruction of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God. Understanding "arbitrary" to mean "individual discretion" we have my argument in DA 764.

The wicked are responsible for their destruction. They choose death by choosing sin. I don't see the difficulty here. How could this not be the case? Isn't this exactly what DA 764 is saying?



What is God doing here?

GC 543 tells us "their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves." That means it is something they choose. God gives each one what they choose. That's reasonable, isn't it?

Rosangela, when we have discussed what actually happens in terms of the wickeds' being destroyed, it seems to me that you see things as being largely the way I seem them. In fact, it seems to me like you see as possible everything I see, but aren't sure about some of it. That is, most of what happens we see the same way, and a small percentage you see as maybe being as I see it, and maybe not. That's been the impression I've gotten when we actually talk about what specifically happens to the wicked. Do you agree with this?

Assuming this is the case, it seems to me that our difference in this particular thread must be largely semantical.

I have the same impression regarding Arnold.

Regarding MM, however, it's a different story. He sees God as actually doing very different things than I do. Specifically I'm talking here about whether the wicked are burned alive by literal fire to make them pay for the sins they have committed.

I don't know where Colin stands on this.

We agree as to the mechanism of the death of the wicked. We disagree as to the reason of their death - I believe God will destroy sin, while you think sin will destroy itself.