Where did I break his cardinal law, since that's exactly what I thought he meant?

Can I cook and eat my son? Yes and no. I can cut him up, put him in the oven, and put pieces of him in my mouth, but my character constrains me from doing that.

Is that a discretionary choice? Absolutely! We know of others who have made the other choice.


You're adding new rules to our game. I'm not here to win any argument, but to find truth.

What God chose to do with righteousness/life is beside the point. What is before us is if He could have linked sin and life. Period.

It seems the three of us say Yes. So there's no reason to muddy the waters that are muddy enough.


In the same way I cannot eat my son. I'm able to, but I refuse. I will choose to die rather than do that.


The big disagreement is over whether or not "sinners have the option to choose whatever they want" at the end of the Millennium. You say they can choose life or death at that point, but voluntarily choose death. I say they have no options, and therefore no choice in the matter. Choice requires more than one option.


I say that being constrained by one's character constitutes a choice. Do you agree with that? (See the argument in my previous post - #101899.)

There's no way he meant to say that God could have set things up so that sin would lead to life and righteousness would lead to death. That is certainly putting words into his mouth.




Pardon? I said, "I do not believe that God could have chosen for sin to be linked with life, or righteousness to be linked with death." to which you replied, "Then you do not agree with me or Maxwell. We say God could have, but refused to."

You are the one who made this claim. To what purpose? How is this helping to "find truth"?

I don't believe your claim here is true. I don't believe Maxwell was intending to say that God could have righteousness linked to death.



No, not "period." I said, "I do not believe that God could have chosen for sin to be linked with life, or righteousness to be linked with death." If you're going to respond to this with the claim, "Then you don't agree with me or Maxwell," you need to consider what I actually said!



How is this helping to find truth, Arthur? First of all, you're not dealing with what I actually said. Secondly, in what possible way is a statement like this useful for "finding truth"?



You are agreeing with my point.



No!! This is not the big disagreement. I have said nothing about sinners having the option to choose what they want. Your quote marks are surrounding something *you* said, not me. Why did you do this? That's very misleading.



I didn't say this, Arnold. Please re-read what I wrote.



Again, I said nothing about options. Regarding choice, I said their exclusion from heaven is voluntary. Do you agree with this? "Voluntary" means they are making a choice, doesn't it?



This is just semantics. I see no meaningful difference in our positions here.

What you are saying is basically the following. God could choose to kill us, put us in a soup, and eat us, but His character does not allow Him to do this. Therefore He is making a discretionary choice not to do this.

Ok, this is true, but isn't this a rather odd way to think about it? How is this conveying any useful information?

The point I've been making is that the fate of the wicked is decided by themselves, their own choices, as opposed to an act based on the individual discretion of God. Isn't this what DA 764 says? You were the one who suggested "individual discretion" as the meaning for "arbitrary" used there. I simply agreed with your definition.

Then forget it. It's a red herring that's only causing confusion.

Interviewer asked Maxwell if God could have set it up so that sinners can go on living. Maxwell said God could have, but refused to. I agree. Don't you agree with that?

If you do, then the basic premise is settled.

Here's what you actually said: "I do not believe that God could have chosen for sin to be linked with life, or righteousness to be linked with death."

Do you mean that "God could not have chosen for sin to be linked with life and God could not have chosen for righteousness to be linked with death"? That's what I think you meant. Am I right?

Regarding #101889,

God is life and life abides in Him. One cannot be separated from God and have life. When one choose to separate from God, one chooses to die:



This is not a choice God makes, but a choice the wicked make.

Here's something which I've found helpful in regards to what we've been discussing:

There is nothing, save the selfish heart of man, that lives unto itself. No bird that cleaves the air, no animal that moves upon the ground, but ministers to some other life. There is no leaf of the forest, or lowly blade of grass, but has its ministry. Every tree and shrub and leaf pours forth that element of life without which neither man nor animal could live; and man and animal, in turn, minister to the life of tree and shrub and leaf. The flowers breathe fragrance and unfold their beauty in blessing to the world. The sun sheds its light to gladden a thousand worlds. The ocean, itself the source of all our springs and fountains, receives the streams from every land, but takes to give. The mists ascending from its bosom fall in showers to water the earth, that it may bring forth and bud.

The angels of glory find their joy in giving,--giving love and tireless watchcare to souls that are fallen and unholy. Heavenly beings woo the hearts of men; they bring to this dark world light from the courts above; by gentle and patient ministry they move upon the human spirit, to bring the lost into a fellowship with Christ which is even closer than they themselves can know.

But turning from all lesser representations, we behold God in Jesus. Looking unto Jesus we see that it is the glory of our God to give. "I do nothing of Myself," said Christ; "the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father." "I seek not Mine own glory," but the glory of Him that sent Me. John 8:28; 6:57; 8:50; 7:18. In these words is set forth the great principle which is the law of life for the universe. All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the Father's life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life.

In heaven itself this law was broken. (DA 20, 21)

This speaks of the "law of life" of the universe. What is the law? It is to receive from the hand of God, and give. Give back to God, and give to others. This is the law of "life."

The contrast of this is to receive from the hand of God and not give. This is the law of death.

Selfishness can only lead to death because it's based on a death-filled principle. One cannot live for self and live because life is not predicated on living for self. It can't be. Not because of an arbitrary decision which God makes, but because of the nature of things.

God => Life
God => Love

Self => Anti-love
Self => Death

Sin => Anti-Christ => Self => Death

Yes, you got it! That's exactly what I'm saying.

That conveys useful information in that it tells you something about God's character, what He is like. If you say that God had no choice in the matter, it tells you nothing about Him.

In the same way, to say that God's character constrained Him to choose to link sin with death and righteousness with life tells us something about what kind of God we serve. However, if you say that God didn't "choose" things to be that way, but just found that He had to do it that way, that tells you nothing about God, except that He is bound by a higher power to which He is subject.

In the same way, to say that the sinner's character constrains him to choose to die rather than live with God tells us a lot about the sinner. If we say that he was merely forced to die provides no information with which to evaluate the sinner.

Where we might differ on that is the point when sinners actually have a meaningful choice between two or more options. To say that they "choose to die" while the fire is coming down tastes like sour grapes - they have no other option at that point. That's why I say their choice was made long before that.

What I wrote is perfectly clear and understandable. It's obviously not an exclusive or from the context.

If I say, "I did not go to Texas or Oklahoma" and you claim that Maxwell disagrees with this, isn't it clear that you are asserting that Maxwell is saying I neither went to Texas nor Oklahoma?

I believe sin is linked to death, and is righteousness linked to life, because of inherent properties they have, as opposed to because of an arbitrary decision on the part of God. Actually "linked to" isn't strong enough. The way the SOP puts it is better, death "is the inevitable result of sin."

She makes the point, in DA 764, that death is the inevitable result of sin, as opposed to the result of an act of individual discretion on the part of God.

How could God have no choice in the matter? Does that make any sense? Has anyone been suggesting this? This seems to be "itching where it doesn't scratch," as an old professor of mine used to say.



I think the way the SOP put it is better. Death "is the inevitable result of sin." This is as opposed to because of an arbitrary act on the part of God, as explained in DA 764.



I agree with this.



Perhaps we might disagree regarding this, but I've not made any comment on this.



This isn't clear to me. What is it you believe causes the death of the wicked? Is it literal fire coming down upon them? If so, this would have to be an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, wouldn't it? (using your definition for "arbitrary").

Arnold, I've asked you several times if you agree that the exclusion from heaven by the wicked is "voluntary with themselves." From the context, this is referring to the time after the wicked have been resurrected. I don't think you've responded. (Sorry to make you repeat yourself if you have and I've missed it).

I agree with that post, with this exception. You say things are that way because of the "nature of things." I say things are that way because God, i.e. His character, is that way. Had God been different, or if He found the "nature of things" displeasing to Him, He has the power to make things work another way.

Check this out:
Perhaps our difference is about cause and effect.

I believe that things are the way they are BECAUSE God made them that way. If God wanted things to work differently, He could have made it that way.

I don't think sin leads to death because that's the way God made sin.