Tom,

Now you are beginning to say things in a way I can agree with. However, we still differ somewhat. Perhaps I have misunderstood your position from the discussions we had about a month or more ago, and to be honest, I may have forgotten the finer points of it.

Perhaps we each see a different "differing point." What I see is you saying this:



Whereas I see that death does come from breaking the law, although I do not see this event as anywhere near "arbitrary" (which would paint God in a poor light), but rather as just, righteous, and good....yes, good. If God were to simply bend the rules and allow evil to continue, this would not be good.

I'm sorry if I have misinterpreted your meaning here, and I appreciate your well-reasoned, and patient, explanation of where we differ.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thank you (for your comments at the end of your post).

The "arbitrary" comment comes from this:



The first sentence is a comment on Mal. 4. The word "arbitrary" can mean "whimsical" or "capricious," but that's not it's meaning here. It can also mean "by individual discretion," which is the meaning here.

Iow, EGW is not saying:
a.The wicked will die, as in Mal. 4, because of an act of power on the part of God.
b.However, this act of power is not whimsical or capricious.

She is saying
a.The wicked will die, as in Mal. 4, but not because of an act of power of God, initiated by His individual discretion.
b.Instead, they will die as a result of their own choice.

I've included the whole paragraph, and the following one, so that the fact that she is making the second argument can be easily seen.

In the second paragraph, she points out that had Satan been "left" to reap the consequences of his sin, he would have perished. Now if Satan's death were due to something God Himself was doing to him (e.g. as punishment for breaking the law), she could hardly have said had Satan been "left" to suffer the consequences of his actions, since you cannot "leave" someone to suffer consequences that yourself are causing. Since God would be leaving Satan to suffer the consequences, the cause of those consequences must be something other than God.

She points out what these consequences are immediately following in referring to death as "the inevitable result of sin."

Once we start from the principle that death is the result of *sin*, everything ties together.

Yes, if you break the law you will die, but not because of an arbitrarily enforced punishment by God (read "individual discretion" here, not "capricious"), but because breaking the law is sin, and the inevitable result of sin is death.

Now why should breaking the law result in death? Because the law describes the path of life, which is self-sacrificing love. The following describes this beautifully:



This eloquently describes the law of life for the Universe, which is simply to receive from the hand of God, and give to others (either God Himself, or our fellows) from that which we have received. Giving is life.

Satan broke this law by breaking this law of life. Rather than receive to give, he received for himself alone, and, beyond that, sought to take that which wasn't his. This path leads to death, not because God destroys those who choose this path, but because it is not the path of life. Only self-sacrificing love can lead to life, because the law of life is:

a.Receive from God
b.Give to others

Those who do these two simple things will live.

Because of sin, man became so infected by sin, it became impossible for him to succeed in this law of life. His nature became warped, so that he is self-centered. The only way out of this morass is by beholding the self-sacrificing love of God. And so we have the mission of Christ, whose "whole purpose" is the "revelation of God" in order to "set men right."

Tom,

There is still a world of difference between the following two statements:

[EGW] not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God
[TOM] but not because of an act of power of God

Whereas Ellen White is clarifying what kind of power God exerts, you have translated this to mean He exerts no power at all.

Sorry, but I do not follow this line of logic.

Ellen White also says "...His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them." Is this not an act of God? If it is an act of God, is it not a powerful one?

"Arbitrary" is nearly opposite of "just." God is just. God is never arbitrary. Therefore, Ellen White is simply putting to rest some of the Satan-inspired thoughts many have had about God. Just because God is not arbitrary does not mean He is not just, "righteously indignant", powerful, or a whole line of other things.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If you read what she wrote in context, it should be easily seen that she was saying what I said she was. Here's the immediate context:



She says first of all that "this" (which is quoting Mal. 4:1) is *not* something, but is something else. What is the something else? "when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life." which is expressed in these terms: The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.

Therefore those who die are reaping the results of their own choice. She says this as clearly as possible.

This is contrasted with an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. There are two possibilities here:

1.They suffer from an act of power on the part of God, but that act is not arbitrary.
2.They do not suffer from an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, because their death is not caused by God at all, but is rather a result of their own choice.

If one considers the context, it's very easy to see that she is arguing 2, and not 1.

As I pointed out, she says:



Which is continuing the thought of the previous paragraph, seen by the fact that she says at first the angels did not understand "this". What is "this"? It is that the death of the wicked is a result of their own choice, as opposed to something God does to them.

We see this again in her saying had God left Satan to reap what he had sown, he would have perished. This means that Satan's death is not caused by God, because if it were, then God could not "leave" Satan to reap the consequences of his choice.

Then, to cap it off, she points out that death is "the inevitable result of sin."

If you will consider the last half of the post, it can be seen how this ties in with the principles she lays out in the beginning of "The Desire of Ages." The problem of man (and angels) can be seen as the result of Satan's misrepresenting God's character. The solution to the problem -- the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission -- is the revelation of God, which dispels Satan's lies. When we believe the truth about God, Satan loses his hold over us.

Tom,

We can keep talking about this, if you want, but your logic is only one-sided. It is obvious to anyone willing to look at the big picture that their deaths are not suicides, and that God is responsible for them. A very simple line of logic should suffice here, such as the following:

1) People sin, and become subject to death, because...
2) Sin is the transgression of law, and...
3) The law says those who sin must die, and thus...
4) People who break the law, by that same law, must die.
5) The law is God--a part of Him, a representation of His character and government.
6) Therefore, God is the One offended by sin, and the Executor of righteousness in upholding the law, including its penalty.


No person in their right mind will be saying--"I want to die! I'm going to kill myself so that I can never live again!" Whether or not they did live again would be out of their control anyhow, for God is the Lifegiver, Creator, and Sustainer. It was He to whom they owe their current existence.

It all boils down to one thing--they are removed from the universe by the same Power that brought them into it. The manner of their removal, far from one of their own choosing, is subject to His choosing. It is His power that raises them to life at the end of the millennium to receive the judgment which He has ordained for them (and for which the saints have sat as the jury).

I do not believe for an instant that God is unfair to execute judgment. It would be far more unfair if He did not. It is not arbitrary--but it is nonetheless His act that seals their doom.

If you think about it, for the "sin" to be what destroys the people...all by itself without any help from God...why are there so many sinners today? Why have we not already "self-destructed?"

For Ellen White to say that the sinners reap what they have sown is no surprise. That should be expected. Back to the example of students and teacher...a student will get the grade he/she deserves based upon performance. This is fair. However, it is most certainly the teacher who hands out the grades at term's end. If students gave themselves their own grades, they'd all receive straight A's I'm sure. No, but the sinner has not wanted death--the death has been earned, and will be granted as such by God Himself.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

One-sided how? I've been basing what I've written on texts I've cited, including DA 21, 22, DA 764 and ST 1/20/90, to name a few.



No, God is not responsible for their deaths. Please consider the following:



I added the numbers here. She says 7 times(!) in this one paragraph that God is not responsible for their deaths, but that the wicked themselves are.

Here's another place she makes this point:



Here's another place:





If their choice is to live with God, and people who love Him and His principles, their choice is to die. The statement in GC 543 brings this out. Here's some more of the context:



"Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them... They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them."

This is very clear. Their choice is "voluntary with themselves." It's not forced upon them, but chosen voluntarily by them.

GC, it doesn't seem to me that you have considered the arguments I've presented. I've pointed out several times that she wrote that had God "left" Satan and his followers to reap that which they had sown, it would not have appeared that death is the inevitable result of sin. If things are as you are suggesting, she could not have written this. This should be easy to see. If the death of the wicked is due to God's own actions, as opposed to their own choice, then God could not have "left" Satan to perish.

The following two things cannot both be true:

1.God causes the wicked to die.
2.God leaves the wicked to reap the consequences of their own choice, which is death, the inevitable result of sin.

Either God causes the wicked to die, or He leaves them to die. it can't be both.



Do you not think that sin has the power to destroy? The reason sinners do not die today is because of the grace of God! Where sin does abound, the grace of God does much more abound. If not for the grace of God, all would be dead. "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life" (DA 660).



This doesn't matter. The wicked could give themselves straight A's, and the following would still be true:



This is the problem! The wicked hate God, and the principles of His government, which is self-sacrificing love. They don't want to live forever with God, or even for a moment with Him. They want to flee from Him! Whether or not they receive straight A's, this is still the case!

Please consider the points EGW makes in DA 21, DA 22. The law of life of the universe is self-sacrificing love. Selfishness can only result in death. This should be very easy to see. How could selfishness possibly sustain life?

Tom,

I have read the inspired statements you present. They are all good statements, which I happen to agree with fully. I just don't happen to have interpreted them as you have.


But it can be and is both.

A criminal chooses whether or not to commit the crime. The criminal may do so in full cognition of the penalty. Continuing in it, however, the criminal chooses the penalty in exchange for the temporary pleasure of the moment. Once the time comes, and he is called to answer for his crime, the criminal recognizes the fairness of his reward. The judge brings down the sentence. The executioner does his duty. The criminal is NOT the executioner. But neither is the executioner responsible for the criminal's wrongs. The criminal has chosen the way of death. But the executioner brought the criminal his chosen reward.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Divinity flashing through humanity did not happen all time; otherwise, nobody could have endured His presence long enough to get a word in edgewise. The point is – their sin did not cause divinity to flash through humanity, nor did it cause Jesus to weave and crack a whip, or to flip over the tables, or to drive them out of the temple. Jesus could have ignored their sins and they would not have fled for their lives, the tables would not have flipped themselves over, the whip would not have weaved and cracked itself.


This happened 40 years after Jesus returned to heaven. It didn’t while He was here. You’ve been arguing that Jesus revealed everything we can know about the character of God while here. So, the question still remains – While here Jesus never withdrew His protection and allowed evil angels to destroy sinners. Does this mean God has never done it before?


You said it would be cruel for God to burn someone alive. Therefore, I asked the following two questions:

1. Do you think God was being cruel when He drowned alive millions of men, women, and children in the Flood?

2. And, do you think God was being cruel when He burned alive hundreds of men, women, and children in the fires of Sodom?

These questions are relevant in that they speak to your definition of cruelty. How do you define cruelty? How do you define punishment? Can God do things that would be cruel and wrong for us to do? Answering the two questions above would help me understand you comments about cruelty. The following passage sheds light on these questions:

“The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}


I’m not sure why you feel bringing up unresolved issues is a sign of a bad marriage or a sign of bad communication, but from what I read and studied in the Bible and the SOP people cannot move onward and upward until they resolve and overcome past problems and mistakes. The reason they keep resurfacing is because they haven’t been properly dealt with. In this case, you keep promising you will explain why these stories in the Bible are interpreted in ways that totally misrepresent the character of God. So far you haven’t fulfilled your promise.

Again, you say God has never been cruel, that He has never burned anyone alive. And yet I’ve posted a story where God burned 250 people alive because they attributed the judgments of God to Satan. Was God being cruel in this case?

They were accused of causing the death of good and holy men through the power of the evil one. They dared to attribute the judgments of God to Satan. For this reason God burned them alive. The point is - God burned them alive, not Satan. Do you agree? Or, do you believe, as Tom seems to believe, that Satan is the one who caused them to be burned alive?

The Bible compares the end time punishment and destruction of the wicked to the punishment and destruction of the antediluvians and the sodomites. In so doing, I believe we are to conclude the same principles and dynamics apply. Those who refused to heed the final warning perished.


The flood. The question is – What caused the flood that killed millions of sinners? And why? Did their sins trigger the forces of nature? Or, did God simply stop holding back the impending forces of nature? Or, did God step aside and allow Satan to employ the forces of nature? Or, did God employ the forces of nature? I believe the latter is true. What do you believe?


Yes, He will be pleased with the results of their death. Again, He will not be pleased they chose to neglect or reject Jesus. Nor will He take pleasure in watching them suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. Do you agree?


What do you mean? Are you implying God is a dictator if He doesn’t give the wicked a choice in how they are punished and destroyed?