Tom, here's how Ellen uses the word "fatal": "Nadab and Abihu would never have committed that fatal sin had they not first become partially intoxicated by the free use of wine." {CC 101.2} In this case it was fire proceeding from the "divine presence" in the sanctuary that killed Nadab and Abihu. It was punishment that proved to be fatal - not the sin of offering strange fire. That is, offering strange fire did not cause fire to proceed from the sanctuary and kill them.

Why not? Because sin already meted out its consequences. There would be no reason for God to resurrect them since their rejection of Jesus landed them in a hopeless grave. However, if sin doesn't punish sinners, then the first death does not serve to satisfy law and justice. In this case God must resurrect them to execute justice and judgment in consequence of their sins.

But this isn't right. No one has experienced the death that sin metes out except for Jesus Christ. This doesn't happen until the judgment.



Sin doesn't "punish" sinners, it kills them. That's their punishment.

Regardless of whether sin kill sinners, the first death does not serve to satisfy law and justice. The first death has nothing to do with this. It just a result of Adam's having sinned.

If I reject God, he's going to resurrect me to punish me?

What will I learn?

Please consider the following passages:

Matthew
25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Hebrews
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Ok, I have. And "everlasting punishment" sounds terrible!

What will I learn? How will it correct me?

Excellent question! This doesn't speak well of God, does it?

No, it doesn't. And I'm a little perplexed by Mountain Man's implication of eternal punishment as eternal torment.

Those who reject God's grace are deserving of his wrath: don't bring God down to less than holy and just and good! I don't know whether you support the death penalty of this world or not, but God is very clear about using it for rejectors of his grace...

If God were not to punish the unrepentant wicked he wouldn't be very holy would he? - GC is clear on the fires of hell having retributive qualities: the loving character of God having been established beyond doubt on judgement day, and every knee having bowed to the Son of God, the Devil shall still be the last to perish for ever in the flames. The importance of clarifying God's love to the world is pertinent today, but on the executive judgement day its clarity brings consequences.

The question that kland asked has to do with the motivation of resurrecting the wicked. At least, that's what I understood him to be asking.

My point was that if we have the following scenario:
a.A being rejects God
b.That being is resurrected so that God can punish him,

This isn't a scenario which looks to speak well of God. Why would a good person have a need to punish someone who rejects him?