Right. We misrepresent the truth about God when deny what He said about retributive justice and what He said about the final judgment.

But the bright picture of what Jerusalem might have been fades from the Saviour's sight. He realizes what she now is under the Roman yoke, bearing the frown of God, doomed to His retributive judgment. He takes up the broken thread of His lamentation: "But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." {DA 577.1}

Jesus knew the terrible retribution which would be visited upon the doomed city. He saw Jerusalem encompassed with armies, the besieged inhabitants driven to starvation and death, mothers feeding upon the dead bodies of their own children, and both parents and children snatching the last morsel of food from one another, natural affection being destroyed by the gnawing pangs of hunger. He saw that the stubbornness of the Jews, as evinced in their rejection of His salvation, would also lead them to refuse submission to the invading armies. He beheld Calvary, on which He was to be lifted up, set with crosses as thickly as forest trees. He saw the wretched inhabitants suffering torture on the rack and by crucifixion, the beautiful palaces destroyed, the temple in ruins, and of its massive walls not one stone left upon another, while the city was plowed like a field.

Well might the Saviour weep in agony in view of that fearful scene. {DA 577.2}

Jesus raised His hand,--that had so often blessed the sick and suffering,--and waving it toward the doomed city, in broken utterances of grief exclaimed: "If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace!--"





Here the Saviour paused, and left unsaid what might have been the condition of Jerusalem had she accepted the help that God desired to give her,--the gift of His beloved Son.




If Jerusalem had known what it was her privilege to know, and had heeded the light which Heaven had sent her, she might have stood forth in the pride of prosperity, the queen of kingdoms, free in the strength of her God-given power. There would have been no armed soldiers standing at her gates, no Roman banners waving from her walls. The glorious destiny that might have blessed Jerusalem had she accepted her Redeemer rose before the Son of God. He saw that she might through Him have been healed of her grievous malady, liberated from bondage, and established as the mighty metropolis of the earth. From her walls the dove of peace would have gone forth to all nations. She would have been the world's diadem of glory. {DA 576.3}

Agreed! So what did God say? I believe He said that the wages of sin is death, and that the inevitable result of sin is death, meaning that sin causes death, and that those who sin will die, because of the lethal effects of sin. Otoh you believe that God arbitrarily, or artificially, kills them because, since they do not feel guilt or shame, God has to do this to kill them, as they have inoculated themselves against what would have been the results of sin in the beginning had God not intervened.

Now this is how I understand your view, to the best of my ability. If it's wrong in some respect, please correct it, and I'll try to reflect what you've said in further presentations of your view.

Now here's my question. Why do you think that your view of things presents a more positive view of God's character than the one I've presented?

Teresa, God executes His retributive justice and judgment in several different ways. One of those ways is reflected in the passages you posted above. "God will use His enemies as instruments to punish" the wicked. It would be adolescent, however, to assume this is the only method God employs to punish and destroy the wicked. For example, God has "employed" fire and water to punish the wicked. Ellen White wrote:

The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth, and united with the waters from Heaven, to accomplish the work of destruction. Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {3SG 82.2}

God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored. {LDE 242.3}

The way you are using the word “kill” implies God will murder them. But executing retributive justice and judgment is punishment – not murder. You believe the “lethal effects of sin” is emotional anguish ending in death, that it will cause the wicked to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness eventually ending in death. But the inspired record does not support this idea. Since the wicked are sin-hardened they are incapable of feeling guilt and shame, thus they are incapable of emotional anguish ending in death. You have yet to quote inspired sources that say the wicked will suffer emotional anguish ending in death.


Your view credits sin, not God, for punishing and destroying the wicked. The Universe will praise God, not sin, for ending the great controversy successfully. The following passages speak to your question:

In Noah's day philosophers declared that it was impossible for the world to be destroyed by water; so now there are men of science who endeavor to show that the world cannot be destroyed by fire--that this would be inconsistent with the laws of nature. But the God of nature, the Maker and Controller of her laws, can use the works of His hands to serve His own purpose. {PP 103.2}

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}

Very few realize the sinfulness of sin; they flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the offender. But the cases of Miriam, Aaron, David, and many others show that it is not a safe thing to sin against God in deed, in word, or even in thought. God is a being of infinite love and compassion, but He also declares Himself to be a "consuming fire, even a jealous God" (RH Aug. 14, 1900). {3BC 1166.2}

Satan himself, who was compelled to remain in the midst of the warring elements, feared for his own existence. . . He now uttered imprecations against God, charging Him with injustice and cruelty. . . Conscience was at last aroused to know that there is a God who ruleth in the heavens. . . So when God's judgments shall fall upon the earth before its deluge by fire, the impenitent will know just where and what their sin is--the despising of His holy law. Yet they will have no more true repentance than did the old-world sinners. {PP 99.3}

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. Who will say God will not do what He says He will do? {LDE 241}

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. {PP 405}

PS - God doesn't cause pain. Instead, the result of what He does causes pain. Pain isn't the purpose of punishment - justice is!

Yes, Mike, and let me add one more quote which I also posted just now in the plagues thread (with Tom, every topic seems to center on similar themes).



Unless "the third angel" of the Three Angels' Messages is a double-agent (and I think it akin to blasphemy to suggest such of one of God's angels), God is the one behind the message. The message is also for our day and time.

It is clear from this quote, however, that God's judgments are not arbitrary--but rather those who receive them know wherein they have erred. Their sins were of a "heinous character" and they knew it. God also has given an opportunity to escape, but at some point it is too late.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No it doesn't. I would have used "murder" had I intended that meaning. I meant "kill."



I haven't spoken of murder. I've said that your view is that God has to kill the people who sinned, because by sinning they've caused themselves to be such that they wouldn't die if God simply allowed what was originally the inevitable result of sin -- death involving mental and emotional anguish -- to occur, because they no long feel guilt and shame. I've just been repeating your view, as I understand it.



This is close.



I believe the ideas I've shared are Scriptural.



It surely doesn't support this! I doubt anyone else would support your idea here, even though they, in general, agree with you in regards to the death of the wicked not being due to the effects of sin.



I've quoted several things. Two from "The Desire of Ages" and "Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing" come right to mind.



This is confused, again, in regards to speaking of sin as if it were a sentient being. I just explained, within the last day or two, why this assertion is incorrect. I don't understand why you're just repeating it. Did you not read what I wrote? Did you not understand it? Or did you just forget it?



Why write something like this? That the universe would praise sin is utter nonsense.



No they don't, and they can't. My question is a personal one to you, which can't be answered by quoting another. I'm asking *you* why *you* feel the view you are presenting is superior to the one I'm presenting, especially in relation to God's character. How do you feel God's acting the way you see Him act has Him being a superior Being than acting the way I'm suggesting He acts?