God values law and justice. Yes, of course, He also values mercy and forgiveness. These attributes of God’s character were demonstrated when Jesus, by dying on the cross, earned the right to freely forgive penitent sinners. Can you work with this?


What practical purpose? Are you suggesting no law existed?


There is no need to hypothetically divorce the law from this discussion. The Universe has always been under the law. Sin always has been, and will always be, the transgression of the law. “I had not known sin, but by the law . . . for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Regarding the cure for Lucifer? Did such a cure exist? If so, what was it? Why didn’t it work? How was it different than what God did before Lucifer rebelled? So that your answer is meaningful, please post inspired statements to back it up. Thank you.


Actually, Tom, even you believe God must resurrect sinners, judge them, expose them to the firelight of His undiluted presence and glory, and then put them out of their misery in midst of their fits of rage.


Animals are under the laws of nature, which are extensions of God’s love and character, so, yes, when animals love us they are fulfilling the royal law. Their unconditional love flows from the heart of God. It is pure and awesome. Buy a pet, a dog in particular, and you’ll see what I mean.


“This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.” Here is the same thing stated in the positive: This is an act of power on the part of God. What act of power is she referring to? This act of power:

"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." Ezek. 28:6-19; Ps. 37:10; Obadiah 16. {DA 763.4}


“This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.” The “this” in her statement is referring to passages she quoted in the previous paragraph. That sin is not what kills sinners is obvious from the view you advocate, namely, that God must resurrect sinners, judge them, expose them to the firelight of His undiluted presence and glory, and then put them out of their misery in midst of their fits of rage.


There is no fear of falling. The answers are short and sweet.

1. What did He buy? The Human Race.
2. How much did He pay? He paid the full amount.
3. How did He pay it? By suffering and dying as a sinner.
4. To whom did He pay it? To law and justice.
5. With what did He pay it? His life and death.
6. And, what does He do with it? He enables them to repent and then He empowers them to love and obey Him.


DA 762 addresses a totally different topic. It has nothing to do with God making a conscious decision not to let Jesus die because it wouldn’t work to woo and win back Lucifer after he was guilty of sinning. That’s why I keep asking you for an inspired quote which establishes your assertion.


Are you telling me that your beliefs are so radically different than the way I summarized above that you cannot clear up the confusion here and now? Please explain the organic relationship in your own words (no quotes), it is after all, the cornerstone of what you believe. Why leave it to me to go rummaging around to find it out? Do you trust me to get it right? Save me the perilous journey and state your position here and now so clearly that even a child can grasp it. Thank you.

By the way, if left to themselves, if they had regular access to the tree of life, resurrected sinners could “eat and live forever”. Sin would be “immortalized”. That’s exactly how the inspired record reads. Do you agree with my summary of the inspired record? If not, why not?


If you agree with Ty, why, then, do you also believe it is the firelight of God’s glory that causes them to die? At least I assume you agree with the following description:

To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. Jacob, after his night of wrestling with the Angel, exclaimed, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Gen. 32: 30. Jacob had been guilty of a great sin in his conduct toward Esau; but he had repented. His transgression had been forgiven, and his sin purged; therefore he could endure the revelation of God's presence. But wherever men came before God while willfully cherishing evil, they were destroyed. At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed "with the Spirit of His mouth," and destroyed "with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess. 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4}


You wrote, “The tree of life had healing properties.” I assume you are referring to the leaves. Are you implying eating the leaves would have healed them? If so, healed them of what?

You wrote, “It was not God's will that Adam's life be perpetuated in a fallen state indefinitely.” If sin kills sinners, how, then, is it possible for them to live indefinitely?

You wrote, “It is God who gives life, not a tree.” The inspired record makes it clear both are needed to perpetuate life. God breathed into Adam the breath of life, and this life is passed on from generation to generation. However, people die when they do not regularly eat from the tree of life. This will be true in heaven and in the new earth. God set things up from the beginning that the breath of life in each person is kept alive by eating from the tree of life. He does not have to do something to keep it alive in addition to them eating from the tree of life.

You wrote, “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.” God didn’t have to change the tree of life to prevent sinners from living forever in a sinful state. He accomplished His purpose by preventing them from gaining access to the tree of life. It sounds like you agree with me that it is possible to live forever in a sinful state under certain conditions. If so, how do you reconcile this with your idea that sin kills sinners? Sinners could live indefinitely in a sinful state if they had regular access to the tree of life.


I sensed no uncertainty in the view you hold. You came across as assured, adamant, and doggedly dogmatic. It’s good to hear you actually “strongly doubt” it is completely correct. Perhaps this is why you are hesitant to state your position clearly? I suspect, though, that you do not doubt I am wrong. You are completely convinced that my view is dead wrong. You see me as ignoring the truth in certain passages and arriving at conclusions so wrong it is offensive to you.

We can skip the law, since that's simply a transcript of God's character. So that leaves us with justice. It seems you are saying that God cannot freely forgive sinners because He values justice. I don't see how this is different than saying He cannot freely forgive sinners because He is just. What's the difference?



You're getting off topic here. I said that Lucifer's problem was hatred of Christ, which would be a problem with or without the law. I asked if you agreed with this, and you didn't answer, saying that this counterproductive speculation because God wouldn't create FMAs without the law. I said the angels didn't even know the law existed, so for all practical purposes, this is what happened. So Lucifer hated Christ, without knowing anything about the law. Wasn't this a problem?



Yes, a cure existed. The cure was to repent. The cure didn't work because Lucifer chose not to repent. No, the cure didn't change before or after Lucifer began to repent. When Lucifer hardened his heart to the point that he could no longer repent, he was irrevocably lost. The quotes I would cite are the same ones we've been considering, which deal with Lucifer's fall. The only other one I would add would be where the SOP speaks of Lucifer's wanting to return to heaven after it was too late. For example, SR 26. This shows what happens when one's heart becomes hardened.



This isn't the arbitrary thing. The arbitrary thing is to ask the question "Why?" and then answer that question with "Because it makes sense to Him."



It's hard to believe that you think that an animal's "love" can fulfill the law. It seems like you have an odd concept of what morality involves. If animals can obey the law, then they can disobey it too presumably. Do you believe they will be judged?



She wasn't referring to an act of power on the part of God at all. She said it was NOT this, not that it was.



MM, not the first death, the second. You've got this all jumbled up.

Yes, the "this" she is speaking of is in regards to the Scriptures she quoted in the previous paragraphs. She explains the meaning of these Scripture by 7 times in a row(!) asserting that the wicked die as a result of *their own choice* as opposed to an action on God's part.

The death is the result of sin is evident by statements in inspiration that make this point. Ty Gibson discusses this:



There's also the SOP, which explains that death is the "inevitable result of sin." That seems pretty clear. I'm not understanding how you can read this and conclude that sin does not result in death.

She also writes, "The fatal effects of sin can be removed only by the provision that God has made" (PP 431). If sin has "fatal effects," that means it causes death.



If we perceive that sin is innocuous, except that God does not like it, so He kills those who practice it, it seems to me we are in danger of falling into the pitfalls GC 569 is warning against. If, on the other hand, death really is the inevitable result of sin, then God's actions can be understood as that of a loving Savior, who is working to save us from the "fatal effects" of sin.

It seems to me that if we believe that God will kill us (after causing us inexpressible pain for many hours or many days) if we don't do what He says, that can't help but damage our relationship with Him.

Regarding your questions and answers, you ask, "to whom did He pay it," and then answer "to law and justice," which is still confusing the abstract concepts of law and justice with sentient beings. How can you answer any question that starts with "to whom" with "law and justice"? Neither "law" nor "justice" is a "whom." These are "whats."



I said that God loved angels as well as loving men, and that if Christ's death would have save them, Christ would have died for them. What is it you are disagree with? That God loved them? Or that God would given Christ for them had it resulted in their salvation?



That death is the "inevitable result of sin" is inspiration! So is, "sin, when it is finished, brings forth death." So is, "The fatal effects of sin can be removed only by the provision that God has made." So is "the sting of death is sin." So is "the soul that sins shall die." So is "the wages of sin is death." That's half a dozen statements right there.



I've explained this many times, MM, but I'm happy to do so again. Please consider the following:



What is "the law of life for the universe"? It is to receive from the hand of God to give to others. Continuing:



A further description of "the law of life." So what is the law of death? Continuing.



Now if the law of life is giving, isn't it clear that the law of death is selfishness? Selfishness is at the heart of sin. By choosing self above all others, one chooses self over God, who is the source of life:



(I included "choose" in parentheses, because that's what "love" means here. Aramaic expresses preference in terms of "love" and "hate." We also see this, for example, when Christ said that His followers should "hate" their family members.)

At any rate, it seems to me that the underlined portion explains in simple language why sin results in death.

(More later)

For sin to be immortalized would involve God's giving life to sinners forever, wouldn't it? The tree couldn't give life apart from God, could it? The tree itself couldn't live without God, could it? It doesn't look to me that you're understanding what God is trying to communicate here.

Regarding DA 107, of course I agree with that, as I've quoted this to you so many times. You stopped a sentence too soon! The very next sentence explains that the "light of the glory of God" is the revelation of His character. Of course, "light" means "revelation," and the glory of God is His character, so even from where you stopped this is clear.



I totally disagree with this. I think you're understanding everything, MM, sin, obedience, and life. It amazes me more than I can say that you would think that the tree of life, of itself, without God's doing anything, is sufficient to sustain life.



I think you could read things more carefully than you do. I have a number of reasons for thinking this, in addition to your misreading me here, which I'll share with you if you wish.



Perhaps the problem lies elsewhere. Is that possible?



Yes, I have no doubt that God is not as you perceive Him to be, capable of burning people alive with literal fire for hours or days at a time in order to make them pay for their sins.



Mostly it's your concept of God that I see as dead wrong. You have a view of God that strikes me as being totally unlike Christ. I believe it's because you hold the view of God that you hold that you interpret Scripture and the SOP as you do.

You are attempting to restate what I believe, why not stick to what I stated? Also, there are aspects of the law which are not a transcript of God's character. For example, the law cannot pardon sinners; it can only require God to execute justice and judgment upon them, to immediately enforce the death penalty.

You wrote, “It seems you are saying that God cannot freely forgive sinners because He values justice.” But there is no way anyone would conclude this based on what I wrote above, namely, “These attributes of God’s character were demonstrated when Jesus, by dying on the cross, earned the right to freely forgive penitent sinners.”

You wrote, “I don't see how this is different than saying He cannot freely forgive sinners because He is just.” The difference is I didn’t say anything remotely close to it. Again, I said, “Jesus, by dying on the cross, earned the right to freely forgive penitent sinners.” Do you the diametrical difference? You said, “He cannot freely forgive sinners” and I said, He can “freely forgive penitent sinners”.


The law was written in his heart, which, as you like to affirm, is better than being written on stone. The reason he knew something was amiss when new and strange thoughts and feelings initially occurred to him is because they warred against the loving law written in his heart. Otherwise, how would he have known?


Are you saying the cure for past sins is repentance? Law and justice demand death for sin, not repentance. Repentance means sorrow for the sin committed and trust in God to empower the sinner not to let it happen again. It has absolutely nothing to do with satisfying the just and loving demands of law and justice. You will never find a quote in the Bible or the SOP that says otherwise.


What is arbitrary about believing God executes capital punishment in cases involving sin because it makes sense to Him? Do you doubt that it makes sense to God? Do you know the mind of God well enough to know why He names it His “strange act”? I don’t pretend to know why God thinks capital punishment is right and reasonable. From my puny perspective it would make sense to just leave them dead and buried, not to resurrect them. But obviously it doesn’t make sense to God. So I concede God is right.


No, animals cannot break the law. They are governed by instinct. They cannot not act in harmony with it. God programmed them that way. I’m surprised you are arguing against it. I’m guessing you don’t have a dog.


Yeah, I figured you would say this, so I asked other people to read DA 763 and they concluded as I have (I didn’t prime them in any way). They all agreed that the same thing expressed in the positive would read, “This is an act of power on the part of God.”


Tom, you and I both agree God works now to suspend the inevitable results of sin. Sinners do not now suffer the wages of sin, namely, the second death. Under normal circumstances the first sin would result in death, not a lifetime of subsequent sins ending in soul sleep. The question is – Why would death happen in consequence of one sin, especially a seemingly harmless sin like eating a piece of fruit, if God did not work to prevent it?

I believe the answer is obvious – Because God chooses not to execute sinners! The immediate execution of sinners is what He prevents. That’s why sinners do not die “in the day” they sin. But death did happen in consequence of sin, but it happened to a substitute. “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. {1BC 1104.5}

“This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.” The “this” in her statement is referring to the passages she quoted in the previous paragraph. That sin is not what kills sinners is obvious from the view you advocate, namely, that God must resurrect sinners, judge them, expose them to the firelight of His undiluted presence and glory, and then put them out of their misery in midst of their fits of rage.


They don’t have to be sentient beings for Jesus to pay it to them. There’s no fear of confusing the point. No one who reads the following kinds of statements are tempted to think Ellen is saying law and justice are sentient beings: “God always demanded good works, the law demands it . . .” {1SM 343.3} “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}


I’m talking about the quote in DA 762. It doesn’t establish your assertion. Please post one that does. In case you have forgotten what your assertion is, here it is again – God make a conscious decision not to let Jesus die because it wouldn’t have worked to woo and win back Lucifer after he was guilty of sinning.


Yes, the “wages of sin is death”, and you’ll never hear me say otherwise. Where we differ is how and why sinners die at the end of time. I hear you answering this question by saying God must resurrect sinners, judge them, and then expose them to His undiluted glory, which suggests you believe sinners suffer and die when they come in close proximity to God, which implies you believe they would not suffer and die if God maintained a safe distance.

By the way, if left to themselves, if they had regular access to the tree of life, resurrected sinners could “eat and live forever”. Sin would be “immortalized”. That’s exactly how the inspired record reads. Do you agree with me? If not, why not?


Tom, you didn’t answer my question. Here it is again: “Please explain the organic relationship in your own words (no quotes), it is after all, the cornerstone of what you believe.” It appears you ignored my request that you state it in your own words without using quotes.

Your quotes explain why God cannot allow sinners to live forever in a selfish state, but they don’t explain the mechanics of how they die. So, I still don’t know what you believe about it. You say you’ve explained it “many times” and yet there is no record of it on this forum. You’ve posted quotes which explain why sinners must die, and I, of course, agree with them, but you haven’t posted quotes which explain your theory on what causes them to die.

You used to quote the following passage to prove sin is what causes sinners to die: To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. . . But wherever men came before God while willfully cherishing evil, they were destroyed. At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed "with the Spirit of His mouth," and destroyed "with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess. 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4} End Quote.

But this passage does not say sin is what causes sinners to die. Instead, it clearly says the firelight of God’s glory interacting with their sins is what causes them to die. Death is the result of a toxic combination of God’s firelight and sinner’s sins. Sin by itself is not enough to kill people. And God’s firelight by itself is not enough to kill people. It requires a union of sin and the firelight of God to cause people to die. Do you agree?

Yes, God would have to continue upholding the laws of nature. He did not wind up the world and leave it to run by itself. But, yes, it is very clear from the inspired statements that God established things in such a way that regularly eating from the tree of life perpetuates the breath of life He breathed into Adam and is passed on from generation to generation. The fact you cannot quote anything to refute this position is evidence against your objection.


But, you have no problem believing God withdrew His protection and allowed Korah and clan to be buried alive in a pit, and then you have no problem believing He withdrew His protection the following day and allowed 250 sinners to be burned alive. You are not consistent in your objection to my view.

Because you're not answering the question I'm asking.



This isn't what you mean, is it? Don't you mean there are aspects of God's character which the law does not cover, such as mercy? There's nothing in the law which is not present in God's character, correct?



Again, for the purposes of our discussion, since I'm asking you questions regarding God's character, you should be able to express this in terms of God's character. Unless you didn't misspeak, and what you really mean is that the law requires this, even though God doesn't. Is that what you mean?



So you disagree that God cannot freely forgive sinners because of justice? What is the reason then? (Please answer without mentioning the law).



I'm still not seeing the answer to my question. What attribute of God's character prevents Him from being able to be able to forgive sinners freely?



Lucifer hated Christ. This was a problem, irrespective of any law, wasn't it?



This is what arbitrary is. God's doing something for some reason that you don't understand, but because it makes sense to Him. Arbitrary is not necessarily bad, MM. Judges make arbitrary decisions by exercising their individual discretion. This is exactly what you are suggesting. You ask the question, "Why?" and answer it "Because this makes sense to Him," by which you imply that it doesn't make sense to you, or that there is any explainable reason for what God is doing. This is what arbitrary is.



If they act by instinct, how can they obey the law? If they can obey the law, how can they not disobey it? It's also laughable that you try to bring in my personal life into these questions. Because I don't agree that animals can fulfill the law you think I don't have a dog? As if anyone who has a dog would conclude that dogs can fulfill the law!



I don't understand how anyone would conclude from the following:



that the wicked die as a result of an act of God. I don't see how she could have stated more clearly or emphatically that this is not the case. She says the same thing 7 or 8 times in a row, that the wicked choose to die. She says had God *left* Satan to suffer the results of his sin, he would have perished. Left!! How do you get from "left" that this is the act of God? How do you get from death "is the inevitable result of sin," that sin does not cause death? How do you get from, "The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. 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." that this is act of God?

I just don't see how she could have more clearly stated that this isn't an act of God than what she said. If you're reading this, and getting from this that she is saying that the wicked die because of what God does to them, I don't know what to say. This seems to me to be making language say the exact opposite of what it's intended to communicate. It's not as if she made a single statement to the effect that the wicked die because of their own choice as opposed to what God does to them; she said this 10 times, one right after the other, in the space of just two paragraphs.



Because sin results in death. Given that sin results in death, why should it take more than one sin to result in death?



You ask why would death happen in consequence of one sin if God did not prevent it, and your answer is "Because God chooses not to execute sinners"? What sense does this make?



Why do you think death is the result of sin because God executes sinners? From DA 764, we read:



I don't see how this fits in with the idea that sin results in death because God executes those who sin. In this case, how could Satan die if God "left" him to perish? "Execute" and "leave" are diametrically opposed concepts.



The "this" is the death of the wicked.



MM, it's the *second* death that is the inevitable result of sin.

You write that God puts them out of their misery in the midst of their fits of rage, but don't you mean that God causes them inexpressible pain by burning them alive for many hours or many days?



They have to be sentient beings to be a "whom" as opposed to a what. You see this, don't you?

You can say that Christ paid a debt to law and justice, but this is a metaphor; that's fine. But it's not literal. In order for it to be literal, law and justice would have to be sentient beings.



Agreed. So no one should take this literally, since doing so would require doing the very thing you correctly say no one would be tempted to think.



What I said was that God loved angels as much as men, and had the death of Christ resulted in the salvation of angels, God would have done so. Do you disagree with this? If so, why? Is it because you disagree that God loves angels as much as men, or because you don't think God would have given His son for angels?



I quoted half a dozen things. I have an idea that you would interpret that "the wages of sin is death" as "God executes those who sin." It's not so easy to interpret the other statements this way. (Actually, it's not that easy to interpret this one that way either, but the other ones even less so. For example, death "is the inevitable result of sin." "The sting of death is sin." "Sin, when it is finished, brings forth death." It's difficult to understand these verses as meaning, "God will execute those who sin.")



I've never said anything like this, MM, and I've written hundreds of posts on this subject. I don't understand what's so difficult about quoting something I've said. I also don't understand how you can state things so differently than how I've stated things.

DA 764 says:



This seems like an explanation of how sin results in death. Don't you think so? If one cuts oneself off from life, doesn't one die?



No, MM, I've not suggested this. Out of curiosity, since God is omnipresent, how do you suggest this be done?



I answered this, didn't I? Yes, I wrote:



in answer to this.



Sorry. In my own words, when one chooses to sin, refusing to repent, one separates oneself from God, who is the source of life. Separating oneself from life results in death.



It seems to me that separating oneself from life would result in death. This seems pretty clear to me.

I agree with this. What I disagree with was: "He does not have to do something to keep it alive in addition to them eating from the tree of life."



Well, I don't disagree with what you wrote above, so there's nothing to refute. I could certainly produce quotes to disprove what I disagreed with however.



I don't see any inconsistency here. In the first case, God would be Himself torturing people, assuming burning people alive can be construed as torture (at the very lease, He would be directly causing unimaginable pain to them). In the second, He is caused to withdraw His protection.

How is it that you think God would be capable of burning people alive? I'm not asking on what basis you think He will do this (I know you do so based on your reading of an EW passage and a GC passage) but on what basis you think God would be capable of doing this.

Yes, mercy is an aspect of God’s character which is not a part of the law. The law demands death for sin because it is a part of God’s character. Death must happen in consequence of sin. God has bound Himself by His word and by His law to execute the death penalty, which He did on the cross and will do again at the end of time in the lake of fire. The security of the Universe depends on it.


God earned the right on the cross to freely forgive penitent sinners. He does not have the right to freely forgive impenitent sinners, nor does He want to forgive impenitent sinners. The reason these things are true is because mercy and justice are attributes of God’s character. The security of the Universe depends on it.


You didn’t see the diametrical difference, did you? Sorry for the confusion. Let me spell it out more clearly. You keep leaving out the word “penitent” when you restate my position. You take my very detailed and specific statement and turn it into a generic and nonspecific statement. Mercy and justice are two of the key attributes of God’s character that compelled Him to let Jesus die on the cross so that He could earn the legal right to freely pardon and save penitent sinners, and so that He can execute impenitent sinners in the lake of fire.


Hating Jesus was a problem not in spite of the law but precisely because the royal law of love was an integral part of every fiber and function of his being. Hating Jesus was, under the circumstances, akin to swallowing a lit stick of dynamite. That’s the way God designed and created FMAs. God could have created Lucifer like a lizard and hating Jesus would have been impossible. Lizards were designed and programmed to love Jesus instinctively. But not FMAs. We are governed by a totally different law, namely, the ten commandments. When we live in harmony with them everything functions properly, but when don’t everything malfunctions.


Are you saying the cure for past sins is repentance? Law and justice demand death for sin, not repentance. Repentance means sorrow for the sin committed and trust in God to empower the sinner not to let it happen again. It has absolutely nothing to do with satisfying the just and loving demands of law and justice. You will never find a quote in the Bible or the SOP that says otherwise.


There is nothing arbitrary about it from God’s perspective. My puny perspective doesn’t matter. There are things God does that make sense to me, but there are also things He does that make no sense to me, and I’m okay with it. I trust His judgment and I believe He will explain it to me one of these days, probably in heaven, so that it makes sense to me too.


Right, I forgot you prefer to keeps things impersonal. Bummer. You asked, “If they act by instinct, how can they obey the law?” For the simple reason God designed them to instinctively act in harmony with the law. They have no choice. Just ask any dog owner and they’ll tell you their dogs love them all the time. They will also tell you that such love is heavenly.


It’s a dog thing, Tom, you wouldn’t understand it. Ha! Just kidding. The same thing expressed in the positive would read, “This is an act of power on the part of God.” It is not an arbitrary act of power on the part of God. There is definitely nothing arbitrary about it. He never wields His power arbitrarily.


Here, I’ll let Jude say it, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Ellen concurs, “The Lord is coming to execute judgment upon all who obey not the gospel.”


The only difference between the first and second deaths is what sinners feel and sense before they die and as they are dying. The fact they will be engulfed with flames is nothing compared to their soul anguish. The flames do serve, though, to prevent them from being distracted with fits of rage against one another.

Again, that sin is not what kills sinners is obvious from the view you advocate, namely, that God must resurrect sinners, judge them, and then expose them to the undiluted firelight of His undiluted presence and glory. I’m not sure what you make of the fact God must use fire from above and fire from below to interrupt their fits of rage against one another.


I’m glad you agree that Jesus’ paying our sin debt of death to law and justice makes sense. It simply means what Jesus did on the cross satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice. Death had to happen in consequence of sin. This is one of the many reasons why Jesus had to taste death for us.


You posted DA 762 to prove God made a conscious decision not to let Jesus die because it wouldn’t have worked to woo and win back Lucifer after he was guilty of sinning. I responded by saying it didn’t. You still haven’t posted a quote which does.

Yes, I agree God loves men and angels equally and that if Jesus’ death would have served to woo angels back God would have allowed it. I believe the death of Jesus to save sinners is the ultimate expression of God’s love, and the fact He felt it would not have served to woo back angels is evidence there was nothing He could do to save them after they ventured to sin. You seem to disagree with this observation. Why?


It is also difficult to discern from them that God must first resurrect them and then judge them and then expose them to His undiluted firelight - all these things must happen before they pay their sin debt of death in the lake of fire.


How does one cut oneself off from God? Is there an outlet they unplug themselves from? Are you taking this literally? If not, please explain it.


He has managed to prevent His firelight from consuming sinners with their sins since the fall of A&E, so I envision Him doing the same thing. He also managed to be next to Jesus on the cross in a dark cloud without consuming the sinners in the vicinity. These past 6,000 years proves sinners can live in the same Universe with God without being consumed by the firelight of His glory.


Yes, God would have to continue upholding the laws of nature; otherwise, neither plants, animals, nor humans could survive. If He did this God would not also have to do something else special for sinners to live eternally. All He would have to do is continue upholding the laws of nature. Do you agree?


Here’s the very next paragraph: “In the time of John the Baptist, Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God. His very presence would make manifest to men their sin. Only as they were willing to be purged from sin could they enter into fellowship with Him. Only the pure in heart could abide in His presence. {DA 108.1} End Quote.

I hear you saying when sinners are exposed to the character of God it causes them to die. But earlier you said disconnecting from the source of life is what causes them to die. “The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.” Here Ellen says the light of God’s glory will slay them. Which is it? Do they disconnect and die or does the light of God’s glory slay them?

Also, in keeping with your tradition of comparing quote with quote, I thought it would be helpful to compare DA and GC. In the following passage Ellen says the fire God rains down on sinners in the midst of their fits of rage, and causes them to suffer soul anguish, is the same fire that burns up the rubble and rubbish of earth. Do you think this is the same fire she spoke about in the DA quote above? If not, why not?


Of course, she says basically the same thing in the following DA quote. She even uses the same quote from Ezekiel 28. The fire that God rains down on the wicked in the midst of their fits of rage, and causes them to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness, is the same fire that burns up the rubble and rubbish of earth. And yet you seem to think this source of fire is symbolic. How do you reconcile this idea with what it sys here in these DA and GC quotes?

Since the objective is punishment it doesn't matter if God 1) permits it to happen or 2) causes it to happen - the outcome is the same. For example, if the sinners who deserve punishment fall into a pit alive and are crushed to death when it closes up it doesn't matter if God withdrew His protection and allowed it to happen or if He employed the forces of nature as instruments of punishment. Either way God's will and purpose is served. Listen:

"God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. {3SG 80.2} End Quote.

By the way, what do you think was the source of fire that killed the 250 priests? "And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense." "Fire flashing from the cloud consumed the two hundred and fifty princes who had offered incense."

You asked, "How is it that you think God would be capable of burning people alive?" What is about God's character that compelled Him to permit or employ fire to burn up sinners alive? In a word - Justice. Why do you think God permits or employs fire to burn people alive?

What if there were no law? Would sin still result in death? Would the following still be true?



Or is this only possible if the law exists?



The confusion is that I'm asking a question and you're not answering it. My question didn't specify anything about penitent sinners. Of course only penitent sinners can be pardoned. That goes without saying. I'm asking what is it about God's character that does not allow Him to forgive sinners (or penitent sinners, if you prefer) freely? Again, since the law is a transcript of God's character, it should be possible for you to answer this without reference to the law. In fact, this is the reason I'm asking the question in reference to God's character, so that you will answer the question without reference to the law. Perhaps you can't do this(?)



But the 10 Commandments are merely descriptions of the reality that we need to live in harmony with; they do not create the reality nor are they themselves the reality. The reality is God's character. FMAs were created to love and to be loved, to live in harmony with God, made in His image, to do things in accordance with the principles governed by His character. With or without a written law this would be the case.

When we live in harmony with *God* everything functions properly. It is possible to live in harmony with God while knowing nothing at all about the law, which the angels did for who knows how long before Lucifer began his rebellion.

The law was given as a help, a means to better understand reality. But your making it into a stumbling block to understanding reality, but putting it in the place of God. The law is a transcript of God's character. God is not beholden to the law. God does not need to do things because of the law, but the law reflects God's will, things He would have done in any case. The law reflects the mind and the will of God, just as the law of a society reflects the mind and will of the society.



Here's one:



Regarding Lucifer, there is nothing in inspiration anywhere that says anything about anyone dying in order for Lucifer to be forgiven. If Lucifer had repented, confessing his sin, he would have been forgiven and restored to his position. This is what inspiration tells us.

(More later)