From GC 542, 543:



This looks to me to be a description of reality, as opposed to something imposed upon the wicked. I believe none in the second resurrection will be saved because, and only because, they don't want to be. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves. If they wanted heaven, they could have it. But they don't want it, so God allows them to exercize their free will, just like always.



I'm sure that those who choose to be lost are not fully aware of the implications of this decision, if that's what you're asking. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, and by choosing not to be spiritural, they are of necessity making choices that they cannot possibly understand fully.

Then you do not agree with me or Maxwell. We say God could have, but refused to. You say God could not. That is a significant disagreement. Good thing I brought it up again, so we can clarify that.

That's another point of disagreement. You believe that sinners have the option of going to heaven if they want; I don't. For me, the soul that sins shall die; no other option.

It seems the differences in our views can be summed up this way: You believe God was constrained to do what He did, and sinners have the option to choose whatever they want. I believe God can choose whatever He wants, and sinners are constrained to live in God's world.

Does that sound about right?

Really? You are sure Maxwell believes God could have linked sin to life, or righteousness to death if he wanted to?

This is most not the impression I have of Maxwell's theology. Indeed, Maxwell has been a significant influence to my theology. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion here?

Of course, Maxwell has recorded much more on tapes than in books, but I recall his tapes emphasizing that God wants us to do that which is right not because God tells us to, but because we have a convinction ourselves that it is right. Now if right is right only because God says so, I fail to see any logic to Maxwell's assertion.

It seems to me that Maxwell argues over and over again against the arbitrary scenario you are suggesting.

Here is something from "Servants and Friends"



He compares sin to poison. This is what I've been saying.

I had a whole thing typed out and ready to send, and then poof! gone! I don't know how, or where it went. So, take two.

First of all, I said nothing at all about options. The existence of an option is a different concept.

What I said was if the wicked wanted heaven, they could have it. How is this different than saying that the exclusion of the wicked from heaven is voluntary with themselves? The point is simply that God does not force the wicked from heaven against their will. He simply gives them what they choose. God at no point violates their freedom of choice.




Again, I said nothing about options. Regarding that the soul that sins shall die, this is just another way of saying that death is the inevitable result of sin, which I've been saying all along. So your adding "for me" is superfluous.



Regarding God's being constrained, I said He is constrained by His character. Do you disagree with this?

Regarding sinners, I said nothing about their having an option.



I affirmed this several times, right?



It doesn't seem to me that this world can in any fair sense be called "God's world." Jesus taught us to pray "Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven." If God's will were done here, it could be fairly called His world.

This is, again, the Maxwell interview that you supplied (emphasis mine):

The interview said nothing about linking sin to life or righteousness to death. Also, you didn't address my points, namely this one:



nor the quote I provided from "Servants or Friends" where Maxwell equates sin with poison.

Regarding prisons, I said that God could have allowed the wicked to continue to live in the same sense that He could sin or lie. You said you agreed with this. I would say this is equivalent to saying that He does not do so because He is so constrained by His character. Why do you disagree with this?

Read the quote again:
What more do you want? The guy asks, "Is there any way in which God could have made it so that everybody could ... disobey him and go on living?"

disobey = sin
go on living = life

Maxwell's answer is Yes. My answer is Yes. What is your answer to the question?


I ignored them for now, until I have time to explain my view on that.


I agree with what you said there. I believe God was constrained by Himself - His character - to do what He did.

Our disagreement lies in that you don't see that as God choosing. OTC, I see that as God exercising His will - a choice.

Consider this. Why do sinners prefer death over life? Why can't they just decide to live with God, instead of burning? It is because God is the anti-thesis of their characters. Their characters constrain them to choose death rather than life with God. Do you agree?

1.Regarding Maxwell and prison, it seems to me you've broken a cardinal law of Maxwell. Maxwell speaks of asking two questions when reading someone.
a.What did the person actually say?
b.What did the person mean when they said what they said?

Regarding the prisons, Maxwell's point was that God had the physical ability to keep people alive indefinitely. However, this is not something God would actually do, because of His character.

Maxwell is not saying that God could have set things up so that sin leads to life, and righteousenss to death. You're completely misreading his intent if this is the conclusion you come to. For one thing, there's more to eternal life (the context of righteous => life is eternal life) than simply continuing to physically exist and for another, there were two parts to the equation, the second being that righteousness leads to death. So you have to establish that Maxwell believed that too if you want to assert that he taught that God could have set things up so that sin=> life and righteousness => death.

I've equated God's choice here, in regards to prison, with His choice not to sin or lie. I've pointed out that Scripture says "God cannot lie." In the same sense one could say "God cannot set up prisons for the wicked." I'm sure Maxwell would agree with this. Why not? It's in perfect harmony with the intent of his comment.

In the same way God chooses not to lie and refuses to lie, He chooses not to set up prisons and refuses to do so. As God "cannot lie," He cannot set up prisons.

2.Since we agree that God is constrained by His character, we need to throw out your previous statement:



I've never said that God cannot choose to do what He wants, and you agree with me regarding God's being constrained about His character, so once again I ask, what are you disagreeing with?

3.We've both agreed that God has freedom of choice and makes choices. I don't know why you keep insinuating that I don't see God as choosing. You have agreed that God is constrained by His character. Where am I saying something different than what you believe?



The quotes I cited in GC 543 and DA 764, also DA 107,108 speak directly to this.



Yes. God is constrained by His character, and the wicked are constrained by theirs.

Good we agree there. I think this should clear things up quite a bit.

• At some point, the wicked have the opportunity to choose to have life or death.
• But they are constrained by their characters to choose the option of death.
• This can be described as making a voluntary discretionary choice to die.

I assume you agree with that logic, since that's what I think you've been saying all this time.

Now, here's what I've been saying all this time:

• At some point, God has the opportunity to choose to link sin with life or death.
• But He is constrained by His character to choose the option of death.
• This can be described as making a voluntary discretionary choice to link sin with death.

Since the two arguments use the same logic, they are equally valid or invalid.