said another way, God refuses to protect us if we choose to live any way that is not for our, and our fellowmans, best interest? if i choose to kill, even if that means just being irritated with someone, God will not protect me from the consequences, yet He does.

T:This is fine. It ties in with the following:



This agrees with the idea that God's presence consumes sin, and if men cling to sin, they are destroyed. But let's think through what this means. Sin is not a physical thing, but a mental thing. Sin exists in the mind. Hence the destruction that takes place takes place in the mind. The mind given to sin cannot bear the glory of God's character.

A little later we read:



The truth about God's character gives life to the righteous, but results in death to the wicked. Why? Because of the impact of sin upon their minds.



A lot of people make this mistake! No, the word "arbitrary" is not being used in a tyrannical sense in the quote provided; it doesn't mean "capricious" but "manufactured". That is, she is arguing that the death of the wicked is the natural result of their own choice, as opposed to something which God causes to happen to them. This is obvious to see by simply reading what she wrote:



She says nothing whatsoever about God's being tyrannical (or being accused of such; of course she would never say God was tyrannical, but she could be defending God against such an accusation, which is what you're suggesting, but the context does not bear this out). She says over and over again that the destruction of the wicked is due to their own choice. It's not something God causes to happen, which is why she says it is not an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, which is to say, it's not an act of power on the part of God initiated by Him.

The common idea is that God destroys the wicked by arbitrarily (i.e., "on the basis of individual discretion," not "capricious") taking action upon them. She is arguing against this idea, and saying that, instead of this, they die because of the actions they themselves have taken.

I think a reason for confusion on this passage is a misunderstanding of what "arbitrary" means. Here is Webster's primary definition:



This is how she is using the word "arbitrary," not in the sense you are suggesting, and, again, simply looking at what she wrote bears this out.

Note in the second paragraph cited she says that if God has *left* Satan to reap what he had sown, he would have perished. The destruction of the wicked takes place when God "leaves" them to reap what they have sown. This is His "strange act." This is how He executes justice.



Sorry to break what you wrote in the middle of a sentence, but it was a very long one, and was easier to address your point by breaking up the sentence. Also it looks like breaking it up doesn't hurt the points you're making at all.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying that God's presence causes the wicked to suffer, and God ends their suffering by fire, in accordance to how much they've suffered (those who sinned more have to suffer more, because justice requires this). Is this what you're saying?

In regards to not losing sight of the whole picture because of the one word "arbitrary," I think you can ignore the sentence with the word "arbitrary" in it, and the remaining 10 or 11 sentences are making precisely the point I am.

I understand this, and basically agree. Of course, there are exceptions, where God does protect us although we've chosen contrary to His wishes.



I don't understand this. "... God will not protect me from the consequences, yet He does." Are you saying here God does not protect, or that He does?

Are we talking about the final destruction of the wicked at the end of the 1000 years, or are we talking about people reaping the consequences of their sins in daily live?

I don't understand this. "... God will not protect me from the consequences, yet He does." Are you saying here God does not protect, or that He does? [/quote]

it seems that God removes His protection, generally speaking, but only up to a point. He still seems to protect us up to a point, but i believe you said something along those lines in your post.

"God will not protect me from the consequences, yet He does"

God allows the consequences of sin to play out to a large extent,
yet, IF He would have stepped back and never interferred, this world would have self-destructed long ago.

I think this was quoted before:

"We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one."{GC88 36

Reading through several pages of this thread showed me one thing --

People have a lot of different ideas as to their understanding of God's love!

I disagree.

OTOneH, you yourself have pointed to the 2nd meaning of arbitrary as applicable here, when you first brought me these quotes, months ago; it does fit, as God IS A JUDGGE. OTOH, for the sake of your God's character argument, you're making him as much a pacifist as you and those who agree with you are. That's not Biblical, in the end: for God is no pacificist, though he is long suffering, etc, etc.

I remember something of your discussion with Arnold, I think it was, on this...: God as sovereign judge controls everything, and, from your POV, decides when to stage the judgement day and its annihilation of the wicked; therefore God makes it happen, even from your point of view. That God is sov. judge, from my POV, gives him every freedom and right to deal with the final, en masse attempt to take him and his people out, aside from the judgement day trial & trail of evidence.

Colin, if you simply read the paragraphs, it's easy to see it's not talking about God's being tyrannical, but about the death of the wicked being due to their own choice. She repeats this over and over again, around 10 times(!) in the short space of 2 paragraphs. How many times does she speak of God's tyranny? 0.

Ignoring this makes for an odd interpretation indeed.

Colin, please address this:



I'm very interested in your response to this.