He also says - "Those who have chosen the Devil’s way will be allowed their choice of final non-existence in the end-time destruction."

What is this supposed to mean?

It means this: "The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God."

Here's a summary of the GC:

In heaven itself this law was broken. Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving. Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world.

The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. (DA 21,22)

The Great Controversy is over the character of Satan and God. Satan represents God as being like himself (i.e. Satan), and presents himself as being good and having the best interests of humanity at heart. Revealing Satan's character reveals His own. This point is discussed at length in the chapter "It Is Finished." The first half of the chapter deals with this, and the second half brings it up again.

Of course, dealing with Satan's character isn't all God does, or even the principal thing. Christ came, above all, to reveal the Father.

Back to the two ways. There are only two ways. One is the way of "the law of life of the universe," which is to receive from the hand of God and give of what one has received. The other way is the way of self. Revealing truth about one of these ways simultaneously reveals truth about the other.



You have a specific idea in mind when you say "law and justice," which idea I believe the author dismissed in saying, "Not as some imposed penalty by a divine dictator, but the inevitable result foreseen by a loving Creator."



I believe you're stating it differently than the author did. It's fine for you to state things in your own words, but if you do so you should keep the original meaning. I don't think you're doing that here. In particular, you state "that God allows suffering for one reason." This implies not just necessity but sufficiency. I don't believe the author was arguing for this, but I'm open to change my mind if you will produce something to substantiate your assertion here.

I infer from your response that you agree with the author's assertion that suffering exists because of Satan and that God does indeed allow it to occur in order to demonstrate that it is wrong. However, where you perceive a difference in what the author states and what you believe is that in addition to what the author states, there are other reasons to explain the existence of suffering. Have I understood you correctly?

If so, what are these other reasons?

The underlined portion is the point he's driving at. Irrespective of the examples, which I'll get to in a moment, do you agree with his point?



The author is dealing with the general principle of suffering. Suffering only exists because of the principle of "trying to go our own way." It began with Satan. Had Satan not created this principle, and human beings bought into it, there would be no car crashes nor earthquakes.



You're changing the author's words. He didn't say "every once in awhile."

MM, please be careful in preserving the meaning of others when you put them in your own words or ask questions.

What he said was, "The result would be a world in which evil is never seen for what it truly is" which implies that no result of evil is allowed to be seen. This means the author is dealing the concept of God's not allowing any consequences of evil to be seen. He's not discussing the question of "every once in awhile".

He makes it sound like their final choice consists of one option, and that once that decision is made they simply cease to exist - poof, just like that, they're gone. It isn't described that way in the sacred writings.

I agree. Both are necessary for God to win the GC.


He is not rejecting what I believe by saying, “Not as some imposed penalty by a divine dictator.” I do not believe God arbitrarily imposes penalty like a dictator. But what is he rejecting? What does he believe about the role of law and justice as a reason for why suffering exists?


What other reasons does he give for why he believes suffering exists? I didn’t read any other reason he gave in his article that answers the question he was addressing. He says, “Why is there evil and suffering? Because the Devil chose this way, which is the opposite of God.” What other answer did he give?

Then he asks, “How can we say that God is uncaring, that he willingly allows sin and suffering?” Here he seems to imply God does not willingly allow sin and suffering, that He grudgingly goes along with it. What choice did God have?

Next he wrote, “So often we or the Devil cause evil, and then all of us blame God!” Does God just stand around and watch while we or the Devil cause evil? Doesn’t He have to allow it? Are we or the Devil really that free to go around at will and cause evil whenever and however we please? Are there not 4 angels holding back the 4 winds of human passion? Listen:

GC 614
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old. {GC 614.1}

The author follows up by saying, “We have bought into the Devil’s way, and experience the consequences of trying to go our own way. Not under the punitive hostility of God, but because choosing wrong instead of right has its own natural results.” Here he seems to be saying that the consequences of evil choices are fixed by natural law, which implies neither God, nor Satan, has any say so. But I hear you saying Satan controls the outcome of evil choices. Did I misunderstand your view? He also implies God never causes suffering, that it is always the result of natural law. Earlier he implied God didn't cause the Flood.


Actually, I hear him saying suffering exists because evil choices follow fixed laws, that the Devil merely got the ball rolling. Nevertheless, I agree with what you wrote, namely, that there are times when God gives evil angels permission to inflict people with suffering. But this doesn’t explain all the reasons why suffering exists. Sometimes God causes it Himself. Other times He commands holy angels to cause suffering. Listen:

GC 614
A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC 614.2}

The GC 614 quote I posted above makes it clear that God manages the outcome of evil choices so that they do not exceed the limits He allows. The natural consequence of sinning is death not years of suffering. The plan of salvation prevents sinners from experiencing the real consequences of sinning.

In fact, it is indirectly responsible for sinners suffering rather than dying right away. "Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the Son of God." {1SM 230.1}

So, no, we haven’t seen evil for what it truly is. But we will when God commands the holy angels to cease holding in check the fierce passions of men and angels. The results we see now are regulated by God. They're not what they would be were it not for God's intervention. In this sense the results are, as it were, artificial. The real, unregulated results would be far different.


The Devil hasn’t created a thing in his lifetime. He can only pervert what God has created, and he is not at liberty to cause suffering, instead, he can only do what God permits within the limits and constraints established by God. Yes, sinners are at liberty to manage their own choices, but God is not obligated to sit back and do nothing, to standby and watch natural law run its course. No way! God is at liberty to intervene and regulate the outcome of evil choices in a way that best serves a positive outcome of the GC.

We get this straight from Job, don't we? Well, I don't think you stated it accurately. God sets a hedge around people so that Satan doesn't go beyond what God allows.



Does this have something to do with a disagreement with the author?



The cross revealed evil for what it truly is. Nothing will reveal it more clearly than that. The chapter "It Is Finished" goes into this.

The cross is what most fully reveals good and evil, God and Satan.





The Devil is the author of sin and all its results. "Author" = "creator". Where do you think the principle of selfishness came from if not the Devil?

The last part of what you wrote looked like a red herring. That is, arguing against something that no one is asserting, least of all the author. If you would quote something from the author (a few sentences would be good, not a whole bunch of paragraphs) and explain why you disagree with the author's thought that you quoted, I think that would be an excellent way of proceeding.

TE: God sets a hedge around people so that Satan doesn't go beyond what God allows.

MM: You mean like a filter which allows certain things through? I'm trying to visualize this concept. How does God ensure evil angels do not victimize people beyond His limits? Do holy angels physically restrain evil angels thereby preventing people from being victimized beyond the boundaries God established? How does this work in practical terms? Do you know of an analogy that helps explain it?

...

TE: The cross revealed evil for what it truly is. Nothing will reveal it more clearly than that. The chapter "It Is Finished" goes into this. The cross is what most fully reveals good and evil, God and Satan.

MM: How does this explain why suffering exists? The author isn't explaining why people suffer during the second death experience. He said the reason God does not intervene to prevent the natural consequences of evil choices is because it would prevent people from seeing what evil truly is. There is nothing natural about probationary time. A&E should have died in the day they sinned. That they didn't is totally unnatural.

Well, you and I both believe the artificial conditions that were created when God implemented the plan of salvation altered the cause and effect relationship between evil choices and natural law. God leaves nothing to chance or choice. If He did, the GC would have ended in failure before the Flood. In fact, the Flood made it possible for the GC to continue, otherwise, the entire human race would have rejected God. The same can be said of the Tower of Babel.

...

TE: If you would quote something from the author (a few sentences would be good, not a whole bunch of paragraphs) and explain why you disagree with the author's thought that you quoted, I think that would be an excellent way of proceeding.

MM: I did this already. See posts #102905 and 102908 above.

Consider the book of Job. I don't think I can improve upon that.



I said The cross revealed evil for what it truly is.



Neither was I. I said, "The cross revealed evil for what it truly is."



I don't see the connection here between what you're saying and what I said.



I wouldn't put it exactly like this, but I agree with the basic idea you're expressing here.



It depends upon what you mean by this. This could be true taken one way and false another. Certainly "leaving things to chance" projects a negative idea. However, God certainly permits random things to happen.



If your point here is that God takes actions to enable the GC to be fought, I agree with this. If God allowed Satan to destroy everybody, for example, then no one would be left to make decisions regarding the GC.



"Those who have chosen the Devil’s way will be allowed their choice of final non-existence in the end-time destruction."



Ok, thanks. I'll comment on the first one here. The other post is longer, so I'll respond in a separate post.



What he wrote squares with what Ellen White wrote, as far as I can tell. It looks like he's basically just paraphrasing things Ellen White wrote. If one is familiar with Ellen White's writings, it's pretty easy to see where he got the ideas he's sharing from. For example, GC 543 and DA 764. Their exclusion from heaven is "voluntary with themselves." From DA 764, "God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life."

This sounds to me very similar to what the author is saying.