PS - Also, are you of the opinion God has never caused pain, that He merely withdraws His protection and allows pain to happen?

I think this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to comment. The title of this thread is a bit misleading, it seems to me, or rather the question. The context of the discussion that led to this thread was whether or not God caused people to have excruciating pain as a means to get His way or to punish people. I never made any statement so general as to say that God never causes pain.

For example, when the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, is there pain involved? One could certainly interpret things this way. To my mind, this would be like the Doctor who causes pain to his patient in order to heal him.

If He wanted to do so miraculously, He could have created them, and given them to the COI. Another way would be to direct them in creating their own weapons.



No.



Is it against His law to do these things?



So it is your view that in order to "pay the penalty" it was necessary for Christ to "taste" death, but He didn't actually have to die? How does "tasting" death satisfy the legal requirement that the sinner must die?



If atonement is "at-one-ment," then to say the "other important aspects" must be related to this (i.e., to "at-one-ment"; which is, being made at one).



You asked why I thought that one is freed from sin by faith and repentance. I explained why. What do these questions have to do with that?

Regarding your questions, they have false assumptions, from my standpoint. Enough so that I think you should quote something I've actually said and ask me about that. I'll comment on one point, however, and that is that you appear to believe that the just and loving demands of the law are a separate issue. If it were a separate issue, then it should have applied to Lucifer, and God should not have been able to pardon him nor allow him back to his original post simply on the basis of repentance and submission.



I believe you're making false assumptions here. First of all, you say "assuming God was willing." We don't need to "assume" this, as we've been flat out told this was the case. Secondly "as if creature merit is sufficient to atone for sin" is assuming that the very point we're discussing is true. Rather than assuming this is true, let's consider the evidence. God gave Lucifer a chance to confess his sin, and return to his post. Had he repented and submitted, he would have been pardoned. If the issue were one of having to pay for atonement, surely this wouldn't have been possible. Therefore the assumption is false. So rather than assuming the idea she's articulating is that Lucifer's repentance and submission would be an atonement for sin, consider another possibility that fits with the evidence, which is that this wasn't the issue that needed to be resolved. Lucifer needed to be reconciled to God. That was the issue. In order to be reconciled to God, it was necessary that he repent. In order for man, whose circumstances were different than Lucifer's, it was necessary for Christ to die. Why? The DA passage from page 762 I think it is, that I've quoted many times, explains why. Also the following comment by Fifield nails the issue on the head:





I'm suggesting the following:



Note this speaks of Christ feeling the anguish the wicked will feel.



MM, this whole thing seems circular. You for some reason believe that when it speaks of the glory of the Lord destroying the wicked this is primarily a physical thing, in spite of the fact that she has specifically identified God's glory as being His character, and the context of DA 108 bears this out (she speaks of Christ as the revealer of God's character in the sentence immediately following the statement that the light of His glory, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked.

Consider the following from DA 107, which you quoted:



You quoted this as giving insight to the light, as if this would show it's physical here, although the context elsewhere shows it's not. But it's not physical here either. The wicked are not zapped by Christ, like in Raiders of the Lost Ark, but it is the revelation of His character which has led to their downfall. This can be seen in a couple of ways.

1.The following is from GC 37:



This brings out that the principles in DA 107 are the same as in GC 35-37! The wicked destroy themselves, and how they do so is explained by the principles in GC 35-37 (which quotes the same 2 Thes. passage DA 107 quotes).

2.GC 657 says the following:



If they fall because of the mad strife of their passions, etc., then they don't fall because of physical light emanating from Christ.

However, if we understand this light to be the light of His glory, then everything fits together. Before the coming of Christ is to be a message of God's character:



This is the brightness of His glory which destroys the wicked! Earlier we see that, as Jerusalem of old, they destroy themselves. What caused the destruction of Jerusalem of old? The same thing which will cause the destruction of the wicked at Christ's coming: the revelation of God's character. When the light of God's character is rejected, the wicked are left to their "mad strife" and the control of Satan; they destroy themselves.

So we see the same principles at work in GC 35-37 as at the Second Coming of Christ.



The consistency I see is the rejection of similar principles in each of the passages.



Again, these are all referencing the same principles.



Clearly there are other ways to see this, since it is seen in other ways.



Why do you think I think this?



Since I've been saying all along that God is innocent of any culpability, I'm glad you at least recognize I "seem" to think this.

Please be careful, MM. I've not said that sin, not God, will "punish and destroy" sinners in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. I've pointed out, to you specifically, on a number of occasions that sin is not a sentient being. I would be more comfortable saying what the SOP says, which is that the wicked destroy themselves. True, it is because of sin that this happens, but to say that sin is punishing them, to my mind, makes it sound as if sin has a mind of its own. Those who reject God bring about their own suffering and death. They "destroy themselves." Or, to put it another way, God allows them to receive the results of their choice, to reap what they have sown, leaving them to perish, which is the inevitable result of sin.

yes.

but i dont mean to imply that it originated with you since you are not alone in this view.

it would appear the pioneers understood ellen whites statements in this regard differently than the "descendents" who no longer have her in person to converse with.

along the lines that my friends and children would know what my letters mean because they know and converse with me, but complete strangers would have to make assumptions many times about some point in them.

Ellen White has said in at least one place, "God's people must give to the world a representation of the character of God in Jesus Christ. The Christian churches are fast losing their knowledge of God. His character has been misunderstood and misinterpreted."

How would one misinterpret, misrepresent His character?

It was addressed to Teresa.


What about the "withdraw and permit" principle of punishment? Does God cause pain when He withdraws His protection and permits either nature or evil angels to cause death and destruction?

I agree. However, I see no connection between what the pioneers believed Ellen White meant and eternal torment in hell.

In light of the content of this thread, I submit the following:

But few realize the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor. But in the light of Bible history it is evident that God's goodness and His love engage Him to deal with sin as an evil fatal to the peace and happiness of the universe. {PP 420.2}

Korah would not have taken the course he did had he known that all the directions and reproofs communicated to Israel were from God. But he might have known this. God had given overwhelming evidence that He was leading Israel. But Korah and his companions rejected light until they became so blinded that the most striking manifestations of His power were not sufficient to convince them; they attributed them all to human or satanic agency. The same thing was done by the people, who the day after the destruction of Korah and his company came to Moses and Aaron, saying, "Ye have killed the people of the Lord." Notwithstanding they had had the most convincing evidence of God's displeasure at their course, in the destruction of the men who had deceived them, they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan, declaring that through the power of the evil one, Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men. It was this act that sealed their doom. They had committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, a sin by which man's heart is effectually hardened against the influence of divine grace. "Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man," said Christ, "it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him." Matthew 12:32. These words were spoken by our Saviour when the gracious works which He had performed through the power of God were attributed by the Jews to Beelzebub. It is through the agency of the Holy Spirit that God communicates with man; and those who deliberately reject this agency as satanic, have cut off the channel of communication between the soul and Heaven. {PP 404.4}

Tom, please answer my question. Otherwise I'll just keep asking it.