I agree with you that the concepts are related. I see the final judgment differently than you do, and hence the atonement differently. We're both being consistent with our assumptions, but we have different assumptions. Specifically, the concept that God manufactures the suffering/destruction/death at the final judgment. I see these things as being the "inevitable result of sin" as per EGW (DA 764).

In DA 764 EGW argues that the destruction of the wicked is not due to a manufactured (she actually uses the word "arbitrary," but I believe her meaning is the same as what you mean by "manufactured") act of power on the part of God, but is the result of their own choice.

In GC 543 she also states that the exclusion of the wicked is voluntary with themselves.

Ty Gibson does a good job expressing the concept, which I'll see if I can find. I found something, but it's rather long, so I'll post it separately, next post. I'm quoting at length because I think it gives a better feel for what he's trying to communicate than a snippet would.

Ty Gibson

The law is not an arbitrary set of rules made up at random by God to prove His authority over us, but rather a practical explanation of what love looks like in real life…Sin is anything contrary to the character of God; more specifically, anything contrary to His love…

Love is God’s law, the principle by which He lives. It is a law because it is not arbitrary, but based on reality as it is, governing life by its righteous principles. Love is the law by which God made and sustains life….

Sin is the opposite, antagonistic principle at war with the law of love. Do not view sin as merely an alternative way of living, which happens to be harmlessly different from God’s way. God’s way is the only way to live, not because He happens to be more powerful and can arbitrarily punish us if we don’t comply, but because life is actually, intrinsically present only in God’s way, which is the way of love. The problem with sin is that it is wrong, actually, essentially, inherently wrong. And it is wrong for good reason, not just because the One in charge doesn’t like it. To be sure, God does not like sin, but He doesn’t like it because of what it does to is victims, not because He is a picky control freak who decided to come up with a list of arbitrary rules to keep us under His thumb. Sin, by its very nature, is anti-life. It is intrinsically destructive. Hence the Bible calls it the “law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2).

Once the nature of sin is understood, it is easy to see why sin is a law of death: sin is selfishness, the antithesis of love. As such, it leads inevitably to the exclusion of, and isolation from, the sustaining love and support of all others….

Because God’s love is the law of the universe, by which He created and sustains all things, the principles of that law are designed into our very natures. Within our psycho-emotional makeup, love is encoded as the law of life. When we violate that law, a malfunction signal issues a warning in the form of guilt. That part of our minds we call *conscience* senses discomfort with sin and identifies it as a destructive virus in the computer system, so to speak. Guilt is not arbitrarily imposed by God any more than His law is arbitrary. He is the Architect of conscience, but He is not the source of guilt. He made us with the capacity to feel guilt as a merciful and wise deterrent to sin, desiring, of course, that we would never experience its pain….

While God does not desire that anyone ever experience physical pain or the psychological pain of guilt, even more so He does not desire our utter destruction. Pain is a built-in mercy mechanism intended to aid in the preservation of life. Pain is not an indication that God is exercising some kind of power above, beyond, or contrary to His law of love in order to inflict suffering as an arbitrary punishment for sin. Punishment is organic to sin itself….

It is commonly thought that the connection between sin and death is imply that if we don’t repent of our sins God will kill us. Often no actual, intrinsic relationship is discerned between sin and death. But even a casual consideration of Scripture on this point persuades us otherwise. Notice just these few examples (quotes Gal. 6:7, 8; Rom. 6:16, 21-23; Rom. 8:6; Rom. 8:13; Prov. 8:36; James 1:15)…

So, when Paul says that holiness results in eternal life, he is not removing God from the equation and making life a mere naturalistic cause and effect matter. He is simply describing *how* God gives us eternal life….

God does not threaten, “If you keep sinning, I will kill you.” Rather, He warns, “If you continue in sin, you will die,” for “sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” And so He pleads, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die …? (Ezek. 33:11). We’re caught off guard by a question like this from God. We are more inclined to ask Him, “Why do You kill?” But He points to our sin and asks us, “Why do you choose death?”…

(quotes Rom. 5:11; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 2:24, 25; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15)
Please not the recurring point in the preceding verses:
• Through Christ we receive “atonement”; we are made one with God.
• The purpose of the substitutionary death of Christ is to “bring us to God”; not Him to us. God has demonstrated His reconciled position toward us in Christ.
• Through sin we have gone “astray”; but through the sacrifice of Christ we “are not returned” to God.
• The love of Christ, revealed in His death, causes us to cease living for self and to start living for Him; we are reestablished in the circle of selfless, other-centered love through the atoning death of Christ….

(discussing the three-party picture of the atonement)
1. The sinner, who has aroused the anger of God.
2. A wrathful God, who needs personal satisfaction that can only be derived from inflicting suffering and imposing death; only then will He even consider letting us off the hook with forgiveness.
3. A third-party victim, who is made to suffer and die as a substitute for the sinner.

There are a number of serious problems with the three-party picture, foremost of which is that it makes no legal or moral sense for an innocent third-party victim to suffer the penalty for the wrongdoer. If such an arrangement could actually satisfy God, then we would be forced to conclude that His law and His wrath are irrational and arbitrary, meaning there is no actual relationship between law and sin and death. If God’s wrath can be appeased by venting rage on an innocent third party, then it follows that there is no real problem with sin other than the fact that God doesn’t want us doing it: His law is arbitrary. Moreover, since we have failed to meet His arbitrary demands, we had better suffer ourselves or find a whipping boy to suffer in our place: His wrath is arbitrary.

Biblical Christianity proclaims, in extreme contrast to the third-party view of substitution, that God has given Himself as our Substitute, to bear our sin and its inherent, divinely-ordained penalty. Hence there are only two parties involved in the atonement: 1. The sinner, who has aroused in God a painful tension between a holy, rational anger against sin and an equally holy, rational mercy toward the sinner. 2. An infinitely just an definitely merciful God, who loves us so selflessly that He has chosen to give Himself to suffer and die as our Substitute….

So what actually happened on that hill far away as the Son of God hung between heaven and earth? Did Christ bear the wrath of God at Calvary? What part did the Father act in the suffering and death of Christ? A number of Scriptures bear a consistent testimony to answer these questions:

(quotes Acts 2:23, 24; Acts 4:24-28) ….

Did the Father cause the suffering and death of Christ?

Yes and no!

Yes, if we mean He delivered Him over to suffering and death according to His own wise purpose of grace. Yes, if we mean that the Father gave up His Son to experience the tormenting psychological agony of our guilt.

No, if we mean He acted as an arbitrary source of pain and death, as the tormentor and executioner of His Son. No, if we mean that the Father assumed a position of vicious hostility toward His Son. Christ suffered and died at *our* hands, under the burden of *our* sin, by the gracious, self-sacrificing purpose of the Father….

In holy hatred of sin and unrelenting love for the sinner, the Father handed over His Son to bear the guilt inherent in our sin and to endure the selfish, murderous rage lashing out from our sin. This fits perfectly with Paul’s definition of divine wrath. He explains that it is God giving sinners over to receive in themselves the penalty inherent in their sin (Romans 1:18-28). Christ felt “forsaken” by God, “delivered” up to suffer all that sin ultimately is, not pounced upon with hostility.

The Father was right there with His Son all along, behind the darkening veil imposed by our sin, feeling the pain of the agonizing separation.

I can love a God like that. I am so glad He is that kind of God. You can love Him too. I know you can, because your heart, like mine, yearns to love and be loved with such passionate grace.

Jude 7 - we have the example of Sodom and Gomorrah that "undergo the punishment of eternal fire".

In Heb 12 we see the "discipline" of each of the sons that God loves.

in Christ,

Bob

No comment on the Ty Gibson quote? Regarding Jude 7, this sort of begs the question. Hosea 11 says, "How can I give you up?" and cites Sodom and Gomorrah as an example (one of the cities of the plane).

Regarding Heb. 12, is the discipline that God does (manufactures) something to punish, or God allows some consequence to happen?

i appreciated it and shared it as well. it also brought to light a post that had been "buried" over time.

Thanks. I appreciate very much Ty's perspective. It's helped me a lot.

He has an interesting story. He was always very conscientious, but had a very negative religion, with I'd say perfectionistic leanings, but had an awakening where he just fell in love with the cross and the love of God, and his whole perspective changed, as well as his emphasis. Now he's all about God's character and what a wonderful God He is.

Tom, I know Ty personally, we used to hang out together. You're right, he's quite a guy. When he switched his emphasis from being like Jesus to liking Jesus he experienced a radical change. So did his public ministry. By the way, Ty wrote a lengthy response to the questions I asked (you know what I'm talking about) but I'm still waiting for him to give me permission to share it with you.

PS - Please respond to the following posts on this thread:

108527
108530
108533

Tom, how do you fit the insights above in with the insights below:

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}

By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors. Again and again men commit sin, and yet they do not seem to believe that they must suffer the penalty for breaking the law. {6BC 1095.4}

In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Thou shalt surely die." And the flowing of the blood from the victim would also signify an atonement. There was no virtue in the blood of animals; but the shedding of the blood of beasts was to point forward to a Redeemer who would one day come to the world and die for the sins of men. And thus Christ would fully vindicate His Father's law. {Con 21.3}

In the past you've said that words like "sin," "pardon," and "repent," do not mean what they normally mean, and you also seem to have private meanings for the words "converted" and "born again," so I can only guess that you have some similar definition in mind for "force" and "violence." If one looks at what you write, and considers the regular dictionary meanings of these words, it's quite clear you believe (again, in accordance with the normal meaning of these words) that God uses force and violence.



I don't understand your point here.



Yes, I do! Of course I do! I see you describing God as doing acts of violence, and using force, even though you claim God is not using force or doing anything violent. I disagree with your descriptions, even though you don't use the word "force" or "violence."



There will be a court, and God will be found innocent. God has placed Himself on trial, and the evidence will be presented, and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that God is innocent. This is what the GC is about.

It's important to see that it's not "technically true" that God's permitting something evil to happen is not the same thing as His doing it, which, by the way, is something you also agree with.

There's only two choices:

1.God Himself causes evil things to happen.
2.God permits evil things to happen.

You don't agree with 1, so only 2 is left, so I don't know what you're complaining about; you believe the same thing I do! God permits evil things to happen. I'm right, aren't I, that this is what you believe?



This is from GC 36:



The following quote makes clear how God punishes, and how His judgments come:



Notice how God shows that He is "indeed the living God."



You've got me confused here. You claim that the promises of God in Deut. 28 do not include Him allowing the types of things that happened to Job, yet God allowed it. So do you think God broke His promise?



MM, I think you're confused. I'm not saying anything one iota different than I was saying before. You're the one who's taken this odd tack of interpreting her statement to mean something she didn't say. I'm just be claiming what she said is what she meant.



Here's what she said:



I really don't understand the difficulty here. She is simply saying that all that we can know of God has been revealed by Jesus Christ. That means there's nothing outside of what Jesus Christ revealed that we can know of God. Simple.



Yes I have, MM! I wrote many paragraphs about this, outlining a suggested course of action.



Since all that man needs to know of God is a subset of all man can know of God, it's not misrepresenting her idea, it's just understanding the principle of subset. For example, if I say, "There's not a faster man in the city, or in the whole state!" it's not a misrepresentation if I say "There's not a faster man in the state!"

I'm a bit perplexed by your claim that "all that man needs to know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ" is a misquote, and what you believe. This means you believe that God revealed that all that man needs to know of God, but not all he can know of God. Why do you believe this to be the case?

As to your claim that "the reason you never misquote her in this way is because it agrees with my understanding," this is absurd. First of all, I didn't realize until just now that this was your understanding, so there's no way I could misquote her in the way you suggest for the purpose you are suggesting.

Now as to why I don't put it the way you suggest, it's because it's a subset of what she said. It would be like my saying, "He's the fastest man in the city!" Of course that's true, but it's not as strong a statement as saying "He's the fastest man in the state!" which, of course, includes the fact that he's the fastest man in the city.



That's how He employed them.



No I haven't. I've never argued against this idea.



You're in error, MM. I've never argued this. You're entitled to quote something I actually said to prove your point, but I'm sure you can't, because you're asserting something I don't believe. I know what I believe, so when you assert I've said things I don't believe, I know it's not true. This is why I ask you to quote things I've said. But you don't do this. You just make false assertions.



Sorry to cut you off in mid sentence, but this isn't correct. All you can conclude is that it was not God's will that more damage take place than what God allowed to take place, and that God took steps to prevent this. That God allowed some damage to take place does not imply that God wanted some damage to take place. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to a knowledge of the truth. Yet some perish. Why? Because they act contrary to God's will. Thus it is clear that things can happen which are contrary to God's will.



Please note that it is Satan who is the author of sin and all its results, and that it is Satan who has led men to view disease and death (or one could say "destruction and death") as proceeding from God. It doesn't. It proceeds from Satan.



The causes are different in that in the case of God, He at times permits evil beings to do evil things; He doesn't do evil things Himself. However, evil beings actually do evil things, causing evil to occur. God does not cause evil to occur; at times He permits it to occur.



No, I'm saying the exact opposite of what you're hearing. Perhaps you should stand on your head

It's essentially diametrically opposed, completely different, whether God or Satan does something that results in the forces of nature killing sinners and destroying the earth. Satan actively does these things, and it is his will to do so. God permits certain things to occur contrary to His will. Completely different.

Regarding 108651, you've asked this many times, and I've answered it many times. The brief answer is that I'm considering "justice" differently than you are. Here's something to look at:

http://www.sharktacos.com/God/cross1.html

Take a special look at the part which speak of "justice."