He is rejecting the idea that "law and justice" is arbitrary. What "arbitrary" means here is not "whimsical" or "capricious," but something that God causes to happen that only happens because of His action, with no intrinsic or inherent reason for its happening. So when he says "Not as some imposed penalty by a divine dictator" he means not as something applied arbitrarily but due to a natural consequence of the choice made.

In other words, when one chooses to live selfishly, to sin, one chooses death, because sin and death are inseparable. Here's how Waggoner puts it:



Sin and death are inseparable. Death is to sin what the oak tree is to the acorn. One could say that sin leads to death because of law and justice in the same sense that one can say that the acorn becomes an oak because of law and justice.

If one considers how evil came into being, this answer is exactly correct. It's because this is what the Devil chose. There's no need to say more than this. But you need to consider the context of statements that are made MM! You can't fairly take what an author writes in one place, in a given context, and then make it say something different, without regard to the intent of the author and the context in which he is writing.



I agree with this. God is not a sadist. He certainly takes no pleasure in our suffering.



God's choices were to either grudgingly allow suffering, or to allow Satan and his followers to immediately reap the full of their sin. Had God chosen the latter, it would have allowed a seed of doubt to come about as evil seed to produce deadly fruit later on. God chose to allow the principles of Satan's government to be developed so the truth could be seen.



Boy, this is the truth!



We are very free. Pretty much any evil you can think of doing you can do. I'm sure there are some exceptions to this, but percentage-wise I'm sure that well over 99% of the evil you could purpose to do, you could do.



How does this tie into what the author is saying?



This last doesn't follow. That is, "the consequences of evil choices are fixed by natural law" does not imply "neither God, nor Satan, has any say so." This assertion is wrong.



Yes, you've misunderstood. I've never said this. Satan inspires, or tempts, people to make evil choices, and evil results follow. Also Satan invented the principle of selfishness, and when people buy into this principle, bad results follow. This is what I've said.



What?? No, he never said anything like this. You're just reading this into what he said. You're way off base here.



Ok, this is an interesting line of thought. The author hasn't addressed this. It would be interesting to know how he would answer your question here. I really have no idea how he would.

At any rate, regardless of how he would address your line of thought here (which would, again, be an interesting question to put to him) the basic point would remain, which is that suffering exists because of a principle the Devil invented, and it continues to exist because it is necessary for this principle to be worked out. Wouldn't this would be true even if God were responsible for causing the flood or other events that you see Him as responsible for?

In the book of Job it seems as if the evil angels simply obeyed God and didn't attempt to do anything more or less than God ordained. Is that it works? Are evil angels always so obedient?


Yes, that's what you said, but how does this explain why suffering exists?


I'm glad we agree. I probably learned it studying with you.


How do you know what is random? Are you sure God wasn't involved somehow? Does anything happen that God doesn't cause, command, or consent?


Are you sure Satan would destroy everybody? What makes you think he would? How would it serve his purpose?


It looks likes he is omitting the role of justice and judgment, penalty and punishment. What about Ellen's description of sinners suffering in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness in the punishing fires and flames?

I'm not getting these questions. What do you base your conclusion on? What's the point of these questions. Especially the last one, which seems a rather absurd question to ask. But you must have some reason for asking it. Evil angels "obedient". Really, now.



I was responding to your comment that we haven't seen evil as it really is.



The fact that God consents to something happening does not mean it is not random. Also that some things are random doesn't imply everything is. I'm not suggesting that.



If everyone were destroyed, then God's purpose viz a viz the human race could not be obtained.



I wouldn't say that he's omitting the role that you mentioned, but that he would see it as incorporated in the principles he laid out. He was rejecting the view of an arbitrarily laid out system, which is how he would likely view your perspective of things.

Regarding the duration of sinners suffering in proportion to their sinfulness, that is just a guess, since he wasn't discussing this in what he wrote, but my guess is that his view would be similar to mine, that people suffering in proportion to their sinfulness not because of an arbitrary action on the part of God to make them suffer (like burning them) but because their guilt and their conscience cause this to happen when truth is revealed. Actually I should credit Ty Gibson for this idea, since I probably got it from him, and he explains it better than anyone else I know of.

But, again, this is just a guess since the author didn't comment on this.

Why would anything God does be labeled arbitrary, regardless of which definition is used? Everything in the OT that God caused, commanded, or consented to fall under the definition you gave. For example, there is nothing natural about capital punishment in the cases where God commanded Moses to stone people to death. Death was certainly imposed, right?


This is true of the second death scenario, but it is not true of the first death scenario. The implementation of the plan of salvation created an artificial, unnatural environment in which sinners do not die in the same day they sin. A long, lingering life of sin resulting in “sleep” is totally artificial, totally unnatural. Sinners, both men and angels, are kept alive synthetically by the power of God.

What gives God the right to violate the law in this way? How does He justify upsetting the natural order of things? Is it because God is God and He can do whatever He wants to do? This doesn’t make sense to me. Instead of making something happen He is making something not happen, which is “arbitrary” according to your preferred the definition.

God is obligated to obey the law. He has promised to rule free moral agents in harmony with the precepts and principles of His law. He is obligated to keep His promise. He cannot disregard the law to serve a purpose disallowed by the law. Law and justice require God to punish and destroy sinners in the same day they sin. “By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” {6BC 1095.4}

Ellen explains what God did to save sinners and to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. Because He has bound Himself to uphold law and justice, God had to justify giving sinners probationary time instead of punishing and destroying them in the same day they sinned. It has as much to do about preserving the integrity of the law as it does about saving sinners. Saving the law is as important as saving lawbreakers. Here’s what she wrote about it:

Here's what the author said:



This is dealing with death as the consequence of sin, with what occurs in the final judgment. "Arbitrary" is a fine word to use in this context, and is the word Ellen White herself used in DA 764.



The context of the author's comments is the second death.

I think what helps in understanding what Christ's death accomplished is to consider what the problem was. Here is a description of it:



Continuing on, she describes the solution:



She also deals with this theme here:



A quote you mentioned recently fits in well here:



The only way man could keep the law, which is equivalent to saying the only way man could be brought back into harmony with God, which is equivalent to saying the only way man could be reconciled to God, is by belief in the propitiation. Thus Christ's sacrifice was necessary in order to unite God and man. Here's how Peter puts it:



Now in the ST quote, EGW describes Christ's work of revealing God as the "whole purpose" of His ministry. Since this is the "whole purpose" of it, whatever law an justice required is encapsulated in that. There can't be some other, additional requirement that is not included in what is called the "whole purpose" of Christ's ministry, as in this case it wouldn't be the "whole purpose" but a partial purpose.

That it should be the whole purpose makes perfect sense. After all, the problem is that man and God had been separated by sin. So if God provides a way by which He and man can be reconciled, then the problem is solved.



To comment on this a bit, how are the captives of the great deceiver taken from him? By force? No, by the revelation of truth. This fits into her idea expressed in ST 1/20/90 that the whole purpose of Christ's ministry was the revelation of God, in order to set men right. Note that the deceive obtained his captives by way of a lie against God. Therefore the way the captives were won back was by way of revealing the truth about God.

Are you saying the author argues God allows suffering for one reason – Because this is what the Devil chose?


God grudgingly permits Satan to cause suffering to demonstrate that the way of evil is wrong. Does this idea account for all the suffering that has happened since the fall of our First Parents? Is this the one and only reason why suffering exists? What about the millions who suffered and died in the Flood? What about the fiery death and destruction of the inhabitants of Sodom? What about the ten plagues that caused widespread suffering and death in Egypt?


1. What gives God the right to intervene and prevent evil outcomes in 1% of the cases you alluded to?

2. Why doesn’t He exercise this right in more cases?

3. What are the factors He weighs in deciding when to intervene and when not to intervene in the outcome of evil choices?

4. And, what would He say to comfort the mother whose daughter was abused because God chose not to intervene?


It speaks to why suffering plays out the way it does. Sinners are not left alone to choose and do as they please. Angelic forces exert an influence which holds sinners in check. Their actions and influence regulate, to a great degree, both the choices sinners make and how those choices play out.

Suffering exists in the form we see and observe due in part because of what the angels allow and allow not. Nothing is left to choice or chance. Everything is managed and regulated so that evil choices play out according to God’s goals in allowing the GC to happen in the first place. God has a plan and a purpose in letting the GC play out. There is nothing natural or accidental about how it is playing out.


Sure it does. Unless you believe God is breaks the law and allows Satan to do the same thing. If the consequences of evil choices do not follow fixed laws, what, then, is the truth? Are they up to Satan to decide? Does he randomly, arbitrarily decide how each evil choice will play out? If not, what, then, determines how evil choices play out?


How can Satan invent something is inevitable? Sin is the transgression of the law. Satan didn’t invent it. It is true whether someone sins or not. The potential and possibility of sin was “invented” when God created free moral agents.

Also, the story of Job does not reflect the idea that suffering only follows evil choices. Sometimes suffering exists because God regulates what Satan can do to innocent people in order to demonstrate to the onlooking the nature or quality of their loyalty and obedience to God.


No I’m not. Here’s what he said – “A third response is that experiencing suffering builds character. That may be partially true in a limited scenario, as a learning experience. And we do need to learn from suffering. But it does not resolve the larger questions—how much do babies drowned in the tsunami (or the Flood) actually learn? How were their characters built? While survivors may learn, what of the victims of suffering who do not?

“Most responses are variations or combinations of the above. While there may be elements of truth, they are generally unsatisfying, because the fundamental question remains unanswered. If God is truly good, why does he not stop the suffering?”

He implies that babies drowning in the Flood did not serve to build their character; therefore, it was not one of those situations where suffering serves a noble purpose, where the end justifies the means. His logic implies - God wouldn’t do something that caused babies to drown because it serves no higher purpose. This logic leads me to think the author believes God didn’t cause the Flood.

But in cases where suffering leads people to love and serve God more faithfully, then I am convinced God, either directly or indirectly, causes it to happen. It seems wrong to blame Satan for, or to divorce God from, something specifically calculated to produce righteous results. Nor does it seem right to credit natural law.


God causes, commands, or consents to suffering for different reasons. Do all these reasons boil down to one? I don’t think so. One reason why God causes suffering and death is to execute justice and judgment. Another reason is to build character. A third reason is to make it clear to the onlooking universe that the consequences of disobeying the law are unfavorable. The one common denominator is suffering, but the reasons why God permits it are different.

The following passages explain why God, in some cases, designs, fashions, sends, inflicts, appoints, and ordains suffering:

Every trial permitted is designed to exalt the truth to a higher appreciation, that praise to God alone shall be upon the lips of the true disciple of Christ. {UL 324.5}

The trials to which Christians are subjected in sorrow, adversity, and reproach are the means appointed of God to separate the chaff from the wheat. Our pride, selfishness, evil passions, and love of worldly pleasure must all be overcome; therefore God sends us afflictions to test and prove us, and show us that these evils exist in our characters. . . Afflictions, crosses, temptations, adversity, and our varied trials are God's workmen to refine us, sanctify us, and fit us for the heavenly garner. {AG 89.2}

Many of your afflictions have been visited upon you, in the wisdom of God, to bring you closer to the throne of grace. He softens and subdues His children by sorrows and trials. This world is God's workshop, where He fashions us for the courts of heaven. He uses the planing knife upon our quivering hearts until the roughness and irregularities are removed and we are fitted for our proper places in the heavenly building. Through tribulation and distress the Christian becomes purified and strengthened, and develops a character after the model that Christ has given. {AG 89.3}

[Trials and afflictions] are God's workmen, ordained for the perfection of character. However great the deprivation and suffering of the Christian, however dark and inscrutable may seem the way of providence, he is to rejoice in the Lord, knowing that all is working for his good. {LHU 248.2}

Whatever comes to him comes from the Saviour, who surrounds him with His presence. Nothing can touch him except by the Lord's permission. All our sufferings and sorrows, all our temptations and trials, all our sadness and griefs, all our persecutions and privations, in short, all things work together for our good. All experiences and circumstances are God's workmen whereby good is brought to us. {MH 488.4}

MM, this is speaking to the idea as to why God allows these things to come to pass. James deals with the same point here:



James says we should rejoice in temptations. Why? Because they develop character.

So God allows us to pass through temptations, or trials, in order that our character may be developed, but that doesn't mean that God is the author of these things that come upon us. Indeed, James makes it clear He is not.

James did not say anything like it. He said God does not tempt us with "evil". Which is true. Ellen also differs with your view. She used words like "designs, fashions, sends, inflicts, appoints, and ordains". God designs, appoints, ordains, and then sends suffering to help people build solid traits of character for eternity. Please reread the quotes posted above. It's too plain to misunderstand or to misapply.