I've repeatedly pointed out that law and justice are concepts, not sentient beings. They cannot literally "demand" anything. The mind behind the law, that fashioned the law, is what demands.

For example, say you run a stop sign, and a policeman stops you and writes you a ticket. You go to court and pay a fine because the law demands that you pay a fine. It there a literal law that speaks? No. There was a legislature, or some group of people, that crafted the law, and assigned penalties for infractions. The law represents the mind and will of this group. To say that the law demands a fine be paid is to say that the group of people who crafted the law and formulated its penalties is demanding these things.

Similarly the law of God reflects the mind and will of God. So to say that His law demands something is to say that God demands it. And so I've asked you what about God's character does not allow Him to pardon sinners freely, but demands death in order to be able to do so. Since the law is simply a byproduct of the mind and will of God, you should be able to answer this question without using the word "law". You can speak of "justice," to answer my question, since justice is an attribute of God's character, but in this case writing "God's justice" or "because God is just" would be more clear, as if you right something like "Justice demands that God do such and such," it sounds like you have a conception of Justice as existing apart from God, and making requirements of Him.



What is it that held sinners in bondage?

I've quoted the following many times.



The price was paid to bring us to that repentant attitude of mind to where God could pardon us freely. The price was paid for us, to free us, to ransom us. It was what was necessary to get the job done.

It was not a price paid to God, so that He could legally forgive us. None of the quotes you cited suggest this. Also God's dealings with Lucifer argue against such a presupposition.

I've also quoted the following from Ty Gibson:



(More later)

You can't pay a price to something which is not living. This is where metaphor comes into play



This is my point. "Society" consists of sentient beings.



I don't see a yes or not answer to my yes or no question. I'm asking if my summary accurately reflects your thoughts or not. I'm looking for "yes" or "no" here, not a repeat of an answer I didn't understand which is what caused me to ask this question!

Or, if you don't wish to answer the question, you can just say that.



I believe that God was acting as a Savior, trying to save them, and leaving them without an excuse means "leaving no stone unturned." Iow, God did everything possible to save them. I think His reasons for leaving them without excuse were entirely other-centered, just as everything else God does is.



I disagree. First of all, in such a scenario God would simply be going through the motions, without any actual possibility of Lucifer's being saved. I believe everything God did was in good faith, with the hope that Lucifer would accept His offer. I believe He was motivated from an other-centered love for Lucifer, and not out of a desire to protect Himself.



I think this statement reveals a misunderstanding of what causes Lucifer to be lost. It has nothing to do with arguments, but with the state of the heart. Lucifer hated God. This is what caused him to rebel, and to be lost. If Lucifer had repented, God could have healed him. In this case Lucifer would love God, instead of hating Him, and he would have been saved, as God hoped.



This looks to me to be an ego-centric view of things. I don't believe this accurately expresses God's motivation.



I think He does things for one reason only, the reasons of agape, which is self-sacrificing love.

As you know, I agree God established the law. It is a transcript of His character. However, God is not at liberty to disregard His law. “By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. {6BC 1095.4} God cannot nullify His word, His law. He is honor bound to uphold it. The security of the Universe depends upon God upholding and enforcing the law.

The law requires God to “execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” The penalty for sin is death. And God has bound Himself by His law to punish sinners. Why? Because it makes sense to God. To save sinners, Jesus had to suffer and die as though He committed their sins. He had to die because the law requires death for sin. Death must happen in consequence of sin.


Tom, you seem to think Fifield’s insight is authoritative. But it is no more so than what you and I write. The idea that Jesus died to motivate sinners to repent is only one reason why Jesus had to die. Nevertheless, the law requires death for sin. It does not require repentance. Nor does it require pardon.

The law simply demands life for obedience and death for disobedience. That’s it! “In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin.” {Con 21.3} Why must death happen in consequence of sin? Because it makes sense to God. “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!”

“Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

MM, I wrote:



You look to be either unwilling or unable to do what I'm asking. I'd still like to know your answer to my request, but assuming that doesn't happen, here's another question. If God had not established the law, then, in that case, would He have been able to forgive without someone having to die?



No, I'm not thinking in terms of authoritative at all. I cite Fifield because he clearly expresses the idea I'm trying to communicate, an idea which I think is correct. Yes, Christ paid a terrible price for our pardon, but that price was required because of our circumstances, not God's.



Statements like this reveal that you see no organic relationship between sin and death. To you it's simply something arbitrary God does. You wrote, "That's it!" and "Because it makes sense to God," which makes clear your thought here.

I disagree with your idea here. I don't believe that sin results in God "because it makes sense to God."



I think this clearly explains why death is the result of sin. Rather than death being something arbitrary God causes to people who sin, sin results in death because those who choose the service of sin separate themselves from God, cutting themselves off from life.

No.

You asked, "What about God's character does not allow Him to pardon sinners freely, but demands death in order to be able to do so?" In a word, Justice. God earned the right to freely forgive penitent sinners when Jesus paid the sin debt of death.

You also asked, "If God had not established the law, then, in that case, would He have been able to forgive without someone having to die?" Where there is no law there is no sin. Where there is no sin there is no need of pardon. Where there is no need of pardon there is no need of death.

No, this isn't to say sin is innocuous. God created FMAs to live in harmony with His law, to live in harmony with His character. Unlike animals, He did not create them in a moral void, without law. Animals, as you know, cannot sin. They are not under obligation to obey the law. They will never appear before God in judgment. FMAs are not animals. We are under obligation to obey the law. The penalty for not disobeying the law is capital punishment.


And yet you do not apply the same logic to Lucifer. Why not? Was it because Lucifer knew God too well for the death of Jesus to make any difference? If so, isn't this implying offering to pardon Lucifer on condition of repentance and submission was more effective than Jesus offering to die? If so, why doesn't God offer us this supposedly more effective deal? If you argue Lucifer's case was too different than ours for such an offer to be more effective, how, then, can you insist Lucifer's case is proof Jesus didn't have to die to earn the right to pardon penitent sinners?


Tom, you seem to think you have answers to questions God has not yet revealed. In the Garden of Eden, God told A&E that they would die in the day they disobeyed. He didn't explain how or why. The link between sin and death is not as symbiotic as you think. This is evidenced by the fact God had to deny sinners access to the tree of life to prevent them from becoming immortal sinners. Listen:


I realize you interpret these inspired insights to mean sin causes sinners to die, but for the life of me I cannot comprehend how you arrive at such a conclusion. God had to bar access to the tree of life to prevent sinners from becoming immortal sinners. Being immortal is the opposite of death, right?.

Unless, of course, we decide death is symbolic and not literal. But that hardly makes sense. What do you think? How do you make the quotes above mean sin kills sinners? I'm talking about the quotes above, not other quotes. So please, address the quotes posted above. Thank you.


We are not now separated from God? And yet we are very much alive! Is it because God is supernaturally overriding the natural cause and effect link between sin and death? Is so, doesn't this imply sin is innocuous? If it's natural effect can be so readily prevented, how deadly is it?

At the end of time, God will resurrect the unsaved sinners. They will stand in the presence of God to give an account of themselves. Yet they suffer no physical harm. His presence does not consume them. Even after suffering unimaginable emotional agony in consequence of judgment, they still have enough physical fortitude to turn upon one another in fits of rage. Not until God rains down fire from above and raises up fire from below do they eventually succumb to death - each sinner is punished in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness and then they die.

In spite of this clear revelation, you maintain that sinners die because of something they do, namely, they cut themselves off from God, the source of life. Given all the details we have in the final chapter of the GC regarding the experience of the wicked in the lake of fire, at what point do you think they finally cut themselves off from God? How do they do it? Do they unplug something? Why do they do it? Does God force them to cut themselves off from His supply of life?

Also, is the life force within them like rechargeable batteries that gradually discharge and die? Or, do they die the instant they cut themselves off from God? I really don't understand how it works from your perspective. Nor do I see it playing out the way you envision in the inspired record. Please point out in the GC chapter "The Controversy Ended" where Ellen describes the wicked cutting themselves off from God and dying. Thank you.

Thank you for answering the question.

Now since you yourself said that He must pay the price to Himself in order to pardon us, I assume you have no qualms with this part of what I said.

That leaves the reason, "because God is just," as what you could be taking issue with. I chose this as a way of expressing your thoughts in terms of God's attributes, since that was what I was interested in ascertaining. You said that God had to do this because Justice demanded it. To my way of thinking, saying that Justice demands that God do something is tantamount to saying that because God is just He must do that thing, but you may not feel that way. So what's the difference?

I don't see what the difference is between this and saying, "Because God is just, He demands death in order to be able to pardon sinners." What's wrong with expressing your thought in this way?



Let's consider Lucifer's case. Lucifer's problems began when he indulged a spirit of self-exaltation and his heart became filled with envy and hatred of Christ. If the law had not been established, wouldn't this still have been a problem? Even without the law, wouldn't having one's heart filled with envy and hatred of Christ by a bad thing, which would eventually lead to death if not checked?



Animals cannot love and hate. You write that the penalty for disobeying the law is capital punishment, which is an arbitrary act of power, if ever there was one. Setting that aside for a moment, we have a number of inspirited statements dealing with the relationship between sin and death. Let's consider a couple of them.

1.James says that sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.
2.The SOP says that death is the inevitable result of sin.
3.The SOP also says that had God left Satan to reap what he had sown, he would have perished.

In regards to the first statement, I assume you interpret this to mean that sin, when finished, brings forth death because God kills those who sin? Similarly, in the second, death is the inevitable result of sin because God kills those who sin? Finally, had God left Satan to reap what he had sown means had God left Satan to be killed by God, he would have perished?

I assume you disagree with the following:





Yes I do. The same logic applies to Lucifer. Had the sacrifice of Christ been necessary to lead Lucifer to repentance, capable of doing so, Christ would have died for Lucifer. I think the following well answers the questions you raised:





God has revealed to us the relationship between sin and death in many different places. I really don't understand how you don't see it.



I'm not understanding your request, MM. Take the following quote:



Suppose I ask you, from this quote alone, to establish that the soul is not immortal. Wouldn't you respond to the challenge to demonstrate from Scripture that the soul is immortal by citing texts which are dealing with that subject?

Anyway, back to your question. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil had healing powers. God did not want Adam's suffering to go on without ceasing. It was in mercy that Adam died (PP 82).

Here's a question. If sin does not result in death, then why is it that plants and animals started to die after Adam's sin? Surely it's not because they didn't partake of the tree of life.



No, of course not. It implies God is powerful.



Anything is easy for God. The fact that God can easily do things doesn't imply that links between cause and effect do not apply.



I quoted this from the Desire of Ages. Here it is again:



Please note the underlined part.

MM, as I've pointed out, what it appears to me you are doing, in regards to trying to understand the demise of the wicked, is considering a couple of passages, and simply ignoring others. I've presented DA 764 countless times. Also DA 107, 108, and GC 541-543. It doesn't appear to me that you make any attempt to harmonize these with the other passages you mention.

What EGW suggested we do is to compare what she said regarding a subject with other things that she wrote. Your view looks to me to be basically the same as what she rejects in GC 536.

What I've tried to do is to take into account all of what she wrote on this subject, as well as other things she has written (for example, that no truth can be understood apart from Calvary, or statements she has written regarding God's character) and try to come up with a scenario which makes sense given *all* the evidence.

From what I understand of your point of view, God will supernaturally keep people alive so He can burn them with literal fire, for either hours or days, to make them pay for their sins. I really don't understand how anyone could know God at all and think He would be capable of something like this.

What’s wrong with using my words to express my thought? “God earned the right to freely forgive penitent sinners when Jesus paid the sin debt of death.”


It is more than hypothetical, it is counterproductive, to assume God would create FMAs without a law to govern them and Him. “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.” No law, no life. No life, no death. Again, it would never occur to God to create FMAs without a law to govern them and Him. Sin is punishable by capital punishment because that’s the way God ordained it. Why? Because it makes sense to Him.


You wrote, “Animals cannot love and hate.” You couldn’t be more wrong, Tom. I’m surprised you believe such a thing. Have you ever observed animals in nature? Have you ever watched the Animal Planet channel on TV?

You also wrote, “You write that the penalty for disobeying the law is capital punishment, which is an arbitrary act of power, if ever there was one.” Again, you couldn’t be more wrong. God never wields His power arbitrarily. There are always valid reasons. Everything He does is justifiable. God withheld the immediate execution of A&E because a “ransom was found”. He did not arbitrarily disregard law and justice and grant them a second probation. He had every right to do so. He acted well within the law. Justice requires God to execute judgment upon sinners. Justice demands death for sin not pardon for sin. Death must happen in consequence of sin. He met this requirement in the substitutionary death of Jesus. Again, God never wields His power arbitrarily.


You wrote, “Yes, Christ paid a terrible price for our pardon . . .” What did He buy? How much did He pay? How did He pay it? To whom did He pay it? With what did He pay it? And, what does He do with it?

You wrote, “The same logic applies to Lucifer.” But then you went on to explain why it doesn’t. Obviously you do not believe the death of Jesus was the only way God could woo and win back Lucifer. This implies you believe there was some better more effective way. Can you name something God did that relegated the death of Jesus to second or third place, which rendered it inadequate? I find it difficult to ask this question, but your view makes it necessary.


Not even you believe such an organic relationship exists. You believe God must resurrect sinners, judge them, and then expose them to His undiluted glory. You believe sinners suffer and die when they come in close proximity to God, which clearly implies you believe they would not suffer and die if God maintained a safe distance. If left to themselves, if they had regular access to the tree of life, they would “eat and live forever”. Sin would be “immortalized”. That’s exactly how the inspired record reads. You are at odds with inspiration in the way you insist sin is what kills sinners.


Why am I not surprised you ignored my plea to please explain the quotes I posted above? Why the red herring? Please, Tom, explain why the Bible and the SOP say sinners could “live forever” if they were allowed regular access to the tree of life. Please, Tom, I’m asking you to please address this specific point. Don’t make a brother beg and grovel. Thank you.


You wrote, “. . . try to come up with a scenario which makes sense given *all* the evidence.” God has not left it up to you to formulate a sensible understanding of the final destruction of sin and sinners. God forbid! He has stated the matter so clearly that even a child can grasp it. It does not require great skill and higher learning to see the truth. It is too plainly worded and described to misunderstand. God is not the author of confusion. Even your favorite passage describes God as the one who cuts off the wicked and who destroys them. Listen:

Then the end will come. God will vindicate His law and deliver His people. Satan and all who have joined him in rebellion will be cut off. Sin and sinners will perish, root and branch, (Mal. 4:1),--Satan the root, and his followers the branches. The word will be fulfilled to the prince of evil, "Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; . . . I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. . . . Thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Then "the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be;" "they shall be as though they had not been”. . . The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. . . Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {DA 763}

This isn't addressing what I'm trying to get at, which is to express your thought in terms of an attribute of God's character. Is there a difference of my summary of what you said, which does place things in terms of God's character, and what you wrote? If so, what is it?

The reason I'm asking for this is because I'd like to analyze and discuss the issue in terms of God's character, which is the crux of the GC.



At first, when Satan began leveling his accusations, the angels were not even aware there was a law. This came as a surprise to them. So for all practical purposes, God did that which you are saying is counterproductive.



The law is not the problem. Sin is the problem. Sin would be the problem even without the law. The purpose of the law is to make clear the problem, so that those with the problem can be cured of it.

Take the case of Lucifer's hatred of Christ. With or without the law, this is a problem. This should be obvious. Lucifer needed to be cured of his hatred of Christ. This was the fundamental problem he needed to have solved.



This is the epitome of what an arbitrary way of looking at things is. You and I disagree here. You see God as arbitrary, and have no problem with this. You have problems with the word "arbitrary," but not the concept that God is arbitrary.

The reason this view is arbitrary is because the result is not a consequence of the action, but is simply imposed for no reason you understand or can explain. "Why? Because it makes sense to Him" is an admission that it makes no sense to you.

As a contrast to this, the SOP gives a very easy to understand relationship between sin and death.



What is the inevitable result of sin? Death.



This explains the cause and effect. God is the source of life. To separate from God is to cut oneself off from life.



The context here is the law. You are asserting that animals can love in the sense that love is the fulfilling of the law?



You're not understanding the meaning of the word "arbitrary." A think can be done with valid reasons and be arbitrary. We've been through this before, MM. I'm using the word "arbitrary" the same way I always do in these discussions, in accordance with how the word was used in DA 764, as defined by Webster's primary definition. Not as "capricious" or "whimsical," as your comments here are taking it to mean.



I agree, but what this means is not what you're saying. In DA 764, when it says that the death of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, the next sentence says that the wicked reap what they sow, and the next one after that explains that their death comes because they cut themselves off from God. She is not speaking of "arbitrary" as "capricious" but in accordance with Webster's primary definition of arbitrary, which is by individual discretion, as a judge.

Capital punishment fulfills exactly this meaning of the word arbitrary.



Any analogy will fall down if you take questions like this to extremes. Basically Christ bought us. He did so by giving Himself for us. The price He paid was His life.



Logic has to do with the validity of the argument. An argument depends upon its assumptions and the validity of the reasoning going from one step to another. The case of Lucifer involves different assumptions, but not different reasoning.



This is poorly stated. To says "some better more effective way," implies that the death of Jesus was a way, but not an effective way. What I quoted in DA 762 does not give grounds for your assumption here.



Your logic here is unsound. It's based on a false premise. Besides, your whole thinking here is unnecessarily complicated. Here's the statement from DA:



Please note the underlined portions. This points out how Satan and man were in different positions.



I do believe an organic relationship exists. This is a cornerstone of what I believe. Especially my understanding of the atonement depends upon this belief. It also has a profound impact of my understanding of God's character.



No, I don't believe these things you are asserting. There's too many wrong things to go into detail on each point here. I'd suggest quoting something I actually said, and we could discuss that.



The above is from Ty Gibson. I agree with what he writes here.



You've asked this many times and I've answered it many times. No need to beg and grovel. Just remembering would be nice.

The tree of life had healing properties. It was not God's will that Adam's life be perpetuated in a fallen state indefinitely. Indeed, it was a blessing to Adam that his life ended.

The whole thing with the tree of life involves deep meaning. I think you are missing the forest through the tree, so to speak. It is God who gives life, not a tree. God could have changed the physical properties of the tree if He wished to prevent man from living forever. The whole point here is that God did not desire that sin be immortalized.

You didn't answer my question. Why did the plants and animals die as a result of Adam's sin, if death is not the result of sin? Is it because they were not allowed access to the tree of life?



Yes he has! He has left it with each one of us to have a reason for what we believe. This is a sacred trust given us by God.

Regarding the passage you cited, the parts you wish to emphasize, which put things in "God destroying mode" are simply quotations of hers from Scripture. After she quotes these Scripture, which *appear* to have God being responsible for the destruction of the wicked, she then explains the truth, saying the direct opposite of what you are asserting, that the wicked do *not* die due to an act of God's power, but as the result of their own choice. She repeats this over and over again:



7 times in this one paragraph she makes the same point.

For you to quote Scripture, as if these were the thoughts of Ellen White, and use these to interpret what she wrote *after* this, which was given as an explanation of what she just quoted, is obviously completely backwards.

The objection I have raised in your theory of the end is that you have ignored some of the evidence. In particular, DA 764, GC 541-543, and DA 107, 108. You simply reassert what you already believe, and give no place for these other passages. I don't believe this is an adequate way of approaching the problem.

I wish to make clear I don't believe I have all the answers to this question. I don't think this an easy question, in contrast to your suggestion above. As evidence of its difficulty, I put forth that if you were to talk to 20 different people, you would probably get 20 different explanations as to what happens. Even here on this forum I doubt you would find two people who agree on all the particulars.

What I've done is taken all the evidence I'm aware of, as well as taking into account things I've read from others who have examined the evidence, and tried to make sense of it all. The explanation I provide I strongly doubt is completely correct. It's simply reflects my understanding at the moment.

An even greater objection, from my standpoint, to your ignoring certain passages of inspiration is the view of God that you have to hold to believe that He will do the things you think He will do, such as making people suffer by being burned with literal fire to pay for their sins.