I would prefer it if you would address the posts addressed to you. Also, I would prefer it if you would leave it up to the Moderators to oversee the threads on this forum.

He allowed divorce because the hardness of people's hearts. He allowed polygamy. He allowed them to take things into their own hands and kill people, even though He never gave them weapons to do so. (Have you considered this?)



This doesn't have any thing to do with my point, which is that if you believe that:

a. Capital Punishment is the penalty for sin.
b. Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sin.

then it follows you believe that

c. Jesus Christ was capitally punished.

Regarding the atonement, Sister White refers to it as the "at-one-ment." Thinking of it in these terms, I think, helps to understand the process immensely. It's not a bunch of unrelated, unexplicable acts or things (e.g. "I don't know why God wanted this done, but He must have had a good reason.") thrown in a basket, but a coherent process which is predicated on the concept that there has been a separation due to misrepresentations regarding God and the principles of His government, and a necessary restoration based on a revelation of the truth which dispels the misrepresentations.



I'll quote from the SOP to explain this:



I think this explains it clearly. If you don't see this, I'll go through the quote point by point to explain how it makes the point that repentance and faith sets us free from sin.



I think Lucifer's case makes clear that the way you are thinking of this can't be correct.



For the same reason Revelation doesn't. However, the principles involved are spoken of in other places in Scripture, principally by Jesus, many examples of which are in the book of John!



This doesn't have anything to do with DA 764, and does violence to the text of DA 107, 108, from where you're quoting:



This doesn't have anything to do with radiating light, at least not in the sense you're speaking of it.



This is similar to your claim that God didn't use force of violence. You have a view of things which indicates you believe God did use force and violence, according to how the dictionary defines these words. Similarly if one considers the definition of the word "arbitrary," it exactly corresponds to what you are describing. But you don't like these words, so you reject them. But you keep the ideas the words are describing.



It sounds like your argument is that God is responsible for the destruction of sinners, that sin is basically innocuous, and God kills those who practice it. If God simply left those who sin alone, they'd be fine, because there's nothing inherently destructive about it.

I disagree with this idea, and I think DA 764 makes it abundantly clear that this this idea is incorrect. She points out that if God had *left* Satan to reap the full results of his sin, he would have perished, but God couldn't do this because it was not understood that the inevitable result of sin is death. Therefore onlookers would have attributed the destruction of the wicked to an arbitrary act of power on God's part as opposed to His allowing the wicked to "receive the results of their choice."

It is sin which is responsible for the destruction of sinners, which occurs when they "receive the results of their choice."

If you continue a bit further from the quote from GC 541 you will see that she explains that the exclusion from heaven of the wicked is "voluntary with themselves," that the wicked would long to flee from heaven. She also explains that the principles of kindness are present in the judgment, as well as the principle of loving one's enemy.

but this is a discussion board, sweetie.

True. But there are times when I do not appreciate your comments. Mostly because they come across as disapproving.

How would God have given them weapons if He wanted to? Did He drown the Egyptians in the Red Sea and then direct the COI to gather up the weapons?

Also, you didn’t answer my question. Did God direct them in violating His law by teaching them how to get divorced, to practice polygamy, and to slaughter their enemies in combat?


Yes, it is true that Jesus experienced corporal punishment for our sins on the cross. Remember, though, that capital punishment includes death. Consequently, the fact Jesus tasted, consumed, and conquered our second death, rather than succumbing to it, is evidence He is our Substitute and Savior. As such, is it accurate to conclude, “Jesus Christ was capitally punished”? I don't think so.


Yes, I believe atonement includes empowering sinners to love and obey God. Please keep this in mind as we pursue other important aspects of atonement.


“. . . so the Son of man has been lifted up . . .” Why was it necessary for Jesus to suffer and die as though He committed every sin ever committed? Was it merely to motivate sinners to love and obey God? Or, does it also involve honoring the law by satisfying its just and loving demands, namely, that death must happen in consequence of sin? Ellen White wrote:

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} But it was not merely to accomplish the redemption of man that Christ came to the earth to suffer and to die. He came to "magnify the law" and to "make it honorable." {GC 503.1}


Assuming God was willing to pardon Lucifer on condition of submission and repentance, without also requiring the death of Jesus, as if creature merit is sufficient to atone for sin, and then postulating it proves Jesus didn’t have to suffer and die to satisfy the demands of law and justice is an unwarranted conclusion. Again, nowhere does it say in the Bible or the SOP that God was willing to pardon A&E without requiring the substitutionary death of Jesus. Why do you think this is so? Ellen White also wrote the following about it:

Good angels wept to hear the words of Satan and his exulting boasts. God declared that the rebellious should remain in heaven no longer. Their high and happy state had been held upon condition of obedience to the law which God had given to govern the high order of intelligences. But no provision had been made to save those who should venture to transgress His law. {SR 18.2} [You seem to be saying that after Satan sinned a provision existed to save him, namely, pardon on condition of repentance and submission.]

Cain and Abel represent two classes that will exist in the world till the close of time. One class avail themselves of the appointed sacrifice for sin; the other venture to depend upon their own merits; theirs is a sacrifice without the virtue of divine mediation, and thus it is not able to bring man into favor with God. It is only through the merits of Jesus that our transgressions can be pardoned. Those who feel no need of the blood of Christ, who feel that without divine grace they can by their own works secure the approval of God, are making the same mistake as did Cain. If they do not accept the cleansing blood, they are under condemnation. There is no other provision made whereby they can be released from the thralldom of sin. {PP 72.5}


Weeping and gnashing of teeth can happen for reasons other than the one you are suggesting. Are you suggesting the wicked will experience the same kind of soul anguish Jesus did and for the same reasons?


Here’s the background of my comment:


In response to this, you wrote, “Regarding the GC 673 statements, this isn't all she wrote on the subject. She also wrote DA [764], and GC 541-543, and DA 107,108, to name three other places that speak to this. I've yet to see any explanation on your part that takes into account these other passages.”

Here’s what DA 764 says about it: “By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.”

Here’s what GC 541-543 says about it: “A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. . . It is in mercy to the universe that God will finally destroy the rejecters of His grace.”

Here’s what DA 107-108 says about it: “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.”

Please note that she attributes their death to three different things – 1) His very presence, 2) the glory of God, and 3) the Spirit of God. Elsewhere she says, 4) “The glory of His countenance, which to the righteous is life, will be to the wicked a consuming fire.” (DA 600) The following passages provide an insight into the physical effect of being exposed to the light that God radiates:


Again, you wrote, "This doesn't have anything to do with DA 764, and does violence to the text of DA 107, 108 . . ." So, as you can see, what I wrote was consistent with the passages you referenced.

Remember, we were talking about the effect of the light of God on the wicked during judgment at the end of time (not the effect Christ's presence on sinners while He was here in the flesh - "His very presence would make manifest to men their sin.") Ellen White speaks of something similar in the following passage: "As soon as the books of record are opened, and the eye of Jesus looks upon the wicked, they are conscious of every sin which they have ever committed." {GC 666.2}


I realize this is how you view it. However, there are other ways to see it. BTW, why do you think it isn’t forceful or violent when God withdraws His protection and permits infants to be killed? You seem to think God is innocent of any culpability.


Sin is not what causes people to suffer and die at the end of time. That is plain to me. God says, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” I realize you believe God metes out vengeance by being kind to the wicked. However, it is clear to me that God will execute justice by punishing and destroying the wicked in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. You attempt to word this truth in such a way as to make it sound harsh and ludicrous, but the truth speaks for itself.

it would be nice, very nice, if we each one could feel what the other feels when reading our words.

we all might make more of a conscious effort in how we write.

i have come across more and more sdas who saw the "punishment" of the lost, as you present it, as a variation of the "eternal torture in hell" concept.

i myself have understood it as such.

at least uriah smith, in refuting the eternal torment in hell, believed that conviction was what would torture the lost on that horrible day when we lose, possibly, at least some of our loved ones.

conviction does bring suffering. i have felt it when convicted of something wrong ive done, when ive felt what the other person felt. when ive realized how horrible it was.

we have all been convicted that way at least once or twice in our walk with the Lord, havent we?

In what sense do you see what I have presented as a variation of eternal torment in hell?

Also, Ellen White wrote:

The forbearance that God has exercised toward the wicked, emboldens men in transgression; but their punishment will be none the less certain and terrible for being long delayed. . . . While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some He must cut off those who become hardened in sin. . . . And the very fact of His reluctance to execute justice testifies to the enormity of the sins that call forth His judgments and to the severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor. But while inflicting judgment, God remembered mercy. {CC 155}

To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Eze. 33:11. . . . Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." "The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Ex. 34:6, 7; Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. The severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor may be judged by the Lord's reluctance to execute justice. The nation with which He bears long, and which He will not smite until it has filled up the measure of its iniquity in God's account, will finally drink the cup of wrath unmixed with mercy. {FLB 338.5}

After God has done all that could be done to save men, if they still show by their lives that they slight offered mercy, death will be their portion; and it will be a dreadful death, for they will have to feel the agony that Christ felt upon the cross. They will then realize what they have lost--eternal life and the immortal inheritance. {FLB 338.6}

"Affiliated to the dangers already named is the danger of underestimating the justice of God. The tendency of the modern pulpit is to strain out the divine justice from the divine benevolence, to sink benevolence into a sentiment rather than exalt it into a principle. The new theological prism puts asunder what God has joined together. Is the divine law a good or an evil? It is a good. Then justice is good; for it is a disposition to execute the law. {GC 465.3}

The Lord still works in a similar manner to glorify His name by bringing men to acknowledge His justice. When those who profess to love Him complain of His providence, despise His promises, and, yielding to temptation, unite with evil angels to defeat the purposes of God, the Lord often so overrules circumstances as to bring these persons where, though they may have no real repentance, they will be convinced of their sin and will be constrained to acknowledge the wickedness of their course and the justice and goodness of God in His dealings with them. {PP 393.1}

It is thus that God sets counteragencies at work to make manifest the works of darkness. And though the spirit which prompted to the evil course is not radically changed, confessions are made that vindicate the honor of God and justify His faithful reprovers, who have been opposed and misrepresented. Thus it will be when the wrath of God shall be finally poured out. When "the Lord cometh with ten thousand of His saints, to execute judgment upon all," He will also "convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds." Jude 14, 15. Every sinner will be brought to see and acknowledge the justice of his condemnation. {PP 393.1}

Jesus and the angels looked upon them in anger. Said the angel, Their sins and pride have reached unto heaven. Their portion is prepared. Justice and judgment have slumbered long, but will soon awake. Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saith the Lord. The fearful threatenings of the third angel are to be realized, and they will drink the wrath of God. {1SG 190.1}

"Mighty to save," through the sacrifice of redemption, He was therefore strong to execute justice upon them that despised God's mercy. And the tokens of His humiliation are His highest honor; through the eternal ages the wounds of Calvary will show forth His praise and declare His power. {GC 674.2}

to which i replied:

I don't understand your comment. Are you merely saying Tom is one of the "more and more sdas" you have come across who see the view of justice and judgment I have been presenting as a variation of eternal torment in hell? If so, what do you believe? Are you leaning in Tom's direction? That is, are you beginning to believe God will execute His retributive justice and judgment on sinners by withdrawing His protection and allowing them to experience the undiluted power of their accumulated guilt and shame, and that it is sin, not God, that will punish and destroy them in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness?