The problem is not with a lack of opportunity, but a lack of willingness. It's not like the wicked like heaven and wish they could live there, but God doesn't allow them to. They hate heaven, and *voluntarily* choose to be excluded from it.

The whole point in making clear that the choice is voluntary is to make clear that being excluded from heaven is *their* decision.



The choice to be excluded from heaven is voluntary *after* being resurrected, not before.



It seems to me that this isn't a good analogy and it should be easy to see why. It portrays God in a negative light.

It's not that the wicked want to go to heaven, but God, as a big ogre, doesn't let them, even though things we be good if He did, and God goes, "Sorry. You had your chance. Now it's too late." and this is the reason they are eternally lost.



The problem with the analogy is not what you're saying here, which I can agree with, but with what you said earlier about a kid playing on the tracks. A kid playing on tracks has no accountability. God does not allow the train to run over the wicked due to actions which are analagous to the choice the kid is making; i.e. choices which have no accountability.

People do things they know are wrong. This is what causes them to be lost. They may not know the full implications of their actions (indeed, none of us do) but if they did not willingly do that which they knew was wrong, with the Holy Spirit pleading, crying, shouting (Prov. 1:20) at them not to, they wouldn't be lost.

As the DA passage points out (DA 764), the death of the wicked is not due to the individual discretion of God (this is using your definition of "arbitrary" which you gave to this passage!) but due instead to the decision of the wicked.

I agree with what A. Graham Maxwell said. God could physically have people live in prisons, just like God is physically able to sin. But God will not do this because of His character. I've already made this point clear. I'm not disagreeing that God has the physical capability to do things contrary to His character. I don't understand why you are still bringing this point up. I've already agreed to it.



There was no more need for God to make this "decision" than for Him to "decide" not to rape, murder or steal.

I think Jesus jumped in front of the train, and by so doing He slowed down the train, but one day the train will reach the point where the children are playing.

This suggests to me that Jesus did not fully defeat sin. However, where sin abounds, grace does much more abound. Jesus fully defeated the train.

Admitedly, any analogy will suffer if examined too closely, so let's consider the points involved. I believe:

a.Christ provides a way whereby a person can be fully healed, or saved, from sin.
b.Christ did this at inestimable cost to himself.
1)He came at the risk of failure and eternal loss.
2)He suffered the effects of sin, not being able to see through the portals of the tomb.
c.The problem is sin itself, not what God does to those who sin.
d.If a person chooses sin over redemption, then he will so ruin his own character than he will not be able to, nor desire to, be in the presence of God, nor those who love God and his principles. Thus he destroys himself.

What does the train represent in Arnold's analogy? Sin? To me it represents another thing, but Arnold is the author of the analogy, so only he can say what the train represents.

This reminds me of something from the other thread on Col.



I was curious as to what Luther thought in regards to Gal. 5:1, and his comment is that it had to do with the conscience. That is, Christ frees us from the yoke of bondage by setting our consciences free. (I was reminded of this because this SOP quote speaks of stifling the admonitions of the conscience).

I bring it up because you're still not clearly acknowledging the God made a choice.

God could have done something, but He refused to do it, according to Maxwell. Will you acknowledge that that describes a choice made by God?

I said a long time ago that this would have been contrary to God's character. I understood that you agreed with this. I said that God could have made this choice in the same sense that that He could have chosen to sin or lie.

I don't understand what you are disagreeing with. When God does not lie, is He making a choice? Yes, He is. He is clearly physically able to say things which aren't true, just like anyone else. It is His character which determines that He will not make this choice. He could lie, but He refuses to.

I acknowledge that this describes a choice made by God.

What is it you are disagreeing with? Just semantics? Or something more substantial? If so, what?

You are right. I do agree with that.


Now that we are on the same page, agreeing that God made a choice to link life with holiness and death win sin, refusing to allow the possibility of living forever with sin, that clears away the biggest disagreement. Now that we agree that God chose to set things up that way, rather than Him finding Himself constrained to set it up that way, there's just a small item left to hammer out.

To summarize my view: God chose to link life with holiness and death with sin. We choose if we want sin or holiness. The destiny of each individual is determined by the combination of divine and human choices.

Do you agree with how I see choices determining the destiny of each individual?

Perhaps there's another thing to hammer out...


Is there another possibility available to the wicked than to die eternally? I agree that they don't want to be in heaven, but is the option of living there available to them?

You said in post# 101753 in Can the Law save us?:
When the New Jerusalem is planted on earth, can the wicked exercise his free will in a more significant way than choosing the "one possible thing that can happen"? Is he really "choosing" his destiny at this point, or has he already made his choice long before this time?

And as far as each sinner making his final choice, do you agree with me that some of them make the choice to die, not necessarily knowing clearly how it is going to play out and that their death is fundamentally caused by the lack of a connection with the Life?

I guess we can consider this some more, because I would say that God *was* constrained to do things the way He did. He was constrained by His character.

I would not say that He chose to set things up the way He did because that makes it sound like He could have done things in some other way, and the way He did it was arbitrary.

One could say that God chooses not to lie or sin, which is certainly true, since God has free will, but one could also say, as Scripture does, that "God cannot lie." In the same sense that "God cannot lie," we can say "God can not set up prisons in which the wicked will spend all etenity."



No, I don't. I don't believe that life is linked with righteousness because God chose for things to be that way. Nor do I believe that sin is linked to death because He chose for things to be that way. I do not believe that God could have chosen for sin to be linked with life, or righteousness to be linked with death.

I believe "the inevitable result of sin is death," is a statement in regards to the nature of sin and death, as opposed to a statement in regards to what God chose to do.

Again, I would draw your attention to DA 764, which discusses this. You pointed out that "arbitrary" in this passage means "individual discretion," with which I agree. She says the destruction of the wicked is not due to an act of power depending upon God's individual discretion, but is due to their decisions. To do what? To separate themselves from God, who alone is the source of life.

So if God is choosing to set things up in a certain way, He is choosing to set things up so that life is in Him, and apart from Him there is only death. But is this really something that God "set up"? Or is it simply a description of reality? In God is life, because God is life. Apart from God, there is no life. Not because God does something to make this so, but because that's the way things are.

It seems to me there may be two points we are disagreeing on here:

1.Does righteousness result in life, and sin result in death, because God set things up this way? Or are these consequences due to something inate about rightoueness and sin?

2.Is it possible that God could have set things up in some other way, where righteousness would result in death, and sin result in life?

Actually 2 seems to follow from 1, so maybe there's just one point of disagreement, or clarification, which has to do with whether sin results in death because of the nature of what sin is, or because of something God does or decided.