Webster gives three definitions for the word "arbitrary":

1 not fixed by rules, but left to one's judgment or choice; discretionary arbitrary decision, arbitrary judgment
2 based on one's preference, notion, whim, etc.; capricious young children and their arbitrary rules for games
3 absolute; despotic

While the two latter usages are necessarily negative, this isn't true about the first usage. For instance, we can say that Gideon's sign was arbitrary, in the sense that he selected it, he dictated his own terms.
I understand Tom is referring to this first acceptation of the word, not necessarily in a negative sense.

PS - I am using the word "arbitrary" according to Tom's targeted definition. Tom sees the punishment of the wicked as the result of God simply deciding to cease holding in check the natural cause and effect relationship between sinning and death and allowing sin to run its course. He sees it as similar to drinking a lethal dose of arsenic - purely cause and effect. Allowing sin to act without restraint results in pure and unadulterated suffering and death. The reason sinners do not die the instant they sin is due to the fact God works supernaturally to prevent it.

This is a response to GC's post.

1."Arbitrary" = "depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>" (Webster's primary definition). This is exactly what we're talking about here. God determines the form of punishment. It's not specified by any law, as I pointed out. It's by God's individual discretion. It's arbitrary.

2.There is a death penalty, but's it's not arbitrary, nor imposed, if you prefer that word. It's the direct cause of the choice of the wicked, as DA 764 points out.



Had God *left* Satan to reap what he had sown (i.e., "receive the result of his own choice," as stated earlier in the quote), he would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that this was "the inevitable result of sin."

If Satan dies because God imposes an arbitrary punishment upon him, neither of these paragraphs makes sense.

Please note that, from the context, the definition of "arbitrary" that fits in the first paragraph is Webster's primary definition, not "capricious" or "whimsical" etc. If she had one of these ideas in mind, she would have explained that the punishment was imposed, yes, but just and necessary. But that's not her argument here. Her argument is that the wicked receive the results of their own choice, and that death is the inevitable (not "imposed") result of sin.

3."Without principle or rule of law" does not mean that the law isn't involved in any way, but that the sentence is according to the discretion of the judge, as opposed to being fixed by the law. And this is exactly the case here (according to your point of view). As I've pointed out several times, there's nothing in the law that says that wicked have to suffer and die by fire. This is of God's individual discretion, which is to say that form of the punishment is arbitrary.

4.According to your view of things, of course the flood would be by individual discretion. I don't see what happened in the flood the way you do, so in my case it's not arbitrary. We're looking at this very differently.

5.GC:"Fire is a logical choice. There is nothing in the law which specifies the means of death, is there?"

This has been my point. The form of punishment, according to your view, is arbitrary, as there is nothing in the law which specifies it.

GC:"Then, would it matter to you which form the death should take?"

What matters is that it's arbitrary. The form itself doesn't matter, but the fact that it's not specified by law, but a matter of individual discretion, making it arbitrary.

GC:"You would still think it 'arbitrary' because it was chosen by God, instead of mandated by law?"

That's what "arbitrary" means; not specified by law, but by individual discretion.


6.From my perspective, you're thinking all across the line is arbitrary. It reminds me of something George Fifield wrote:



The "slippery slope" starts once we divorce sin from the consequences of sin. If the punishment of the wicked is not result of sin, but is an arbitrarily imposed penalty, then the price which Christ paid is also in arbitrary solution.

More Fifield:



7.To summarize:

In my view:
1.Suffering and death are the inevitable result of sin.
2.These things are not imposed by God, but are the results of the choices which the wicked have made (DA 764).
3.The problem is sin, not God.

In your view:
1.Suffering and death are imposed upon the wicked as penalties by God, and are not the natural consequence of sin.
2.God uses His individual discretion to set the form of punishment; it is not specified by law.
3.Sin is only a problem, in terms of the judgment, in an indirect way. What we really need to fear is what God will do.

This isn't well reasoned. The fact that A represents B does not mean that everything about A has a counterpoint in B. For example, Christ is the "Lamb of God." This means that Christ, in some respects, is like a lamb. But it doesn't mean that Christ, in *every* respect is like a lamb. If we start asking questions like, "Does Christ have wool?" (which is akin to your line of reasoning here), that can lead to some absurd ideas.



I'm not understanding why you're mentioning this here (i.e., I'm not following your train of thought.)



The sacrifice was designed to show that death is the result of sin committed by the one sinning. There's no way for a man to cause the death of an animal in a non-imposed arbitrary way, so it's not valid to reason the way you're trying to do here.

Yes, this is correct. I got the ideas I've been sharing from DA 764. The context indicates that "arbitrary" here is used in the sense of Webster's primary definition.

Certain sinful choices inevitably result in capital punishment according to law and justice. In the end, during the final judgment, all sinful choices inevitably result in capital punishment according to law and justice. In this sense there is nothing arbitrary about it.

Tom, which aspects of crucifixion do you believe have no counterpoint in judgment? I assume, as a minimum, you see no corollary between capital punishment and judgment.


Sometimes stating the obvious is helpful. The long, lingering first death is the result of a decision God made, namely, to implement the plan of salvation rather than impose the death penalty. In one sense, therefore, the sin and suffering and death we are familiar with is unnatural and arbitrary.


Not at all, Tom. Slaying sacrificial animals symbolized the fact our sins required the substitutionary death of Jesus to satisfy the demands of law and justice and to make pardon and salvation available to penitent sinners. The fact capital punishment was inevitable makes it clear the wages of sin is capital punishment. Nowhere in the judicial or sacrificial system is sin symbolized as executing the death penalty.

This may be the way in which Tom is applying the word, and I agree with your assessment of that. However, is this the way in which Mrs. White applied the word? I do not believe so. Hence, the difference I have with Tom on this point. Mrs. White is using "arbitrary" in a negative sense, made clear by her context.

Here's the Webster's definition from the dictionary of her day:

As you can see, both of the only two definitions given here are negative. Furthermore, I tend to think Mrs. White's usage follows one or both of these definitions.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

I think you missed my point.

Do you believe that the punishment for sin comes apart from the law? that sin itself "punishes"?

Else do you believe there is no punishment for sin, and therefore nothing to be executed or imposed?

If the law is what requires the punishment of sin, and the law specifies that the punishment is death, does it matter how that death penalty is executed? Would not the law be fulfilled in any form of death?

What is "arbitrary" about punishing with death, when the law says death is the punishment?

That is Ellen White's point.

The death penalty is not arbitrary. It is based on the law. To say the penalty is arbitrary is to say that the law is arbitrary, and therefore God Himself is arbitrary. When God executes the death penalty, it cannot be arbitrary, since the law required this, and it is merely meting out the justice demanded by the law.

However, going a step further, God is not merely required to dole out death to the sinner. The law requires punishment for each and every transgression. If this were not the case, the first death would suffice. At the first death, "death" has been given already. But the sins themselves were not punished. This is the purpose of the second death, and the reason that some sinners will suffer longer than others. Again, this is NOT arbitrary, for the law has demanded this in justice.

If a school teacher saw one student pinching and scratching another student for several minutes, but punished this student the same as he punished the student who rudely allowed the door to shut behind him instead of holding it open as the girl behind him with an armload of books was coming in, I suppose some might see fairness in it. I would not. Different sins require different punishments. Is this arbitrary? Not at all. It is justice. It would be "arbitrary" if the sins were treated by some other subjective method than by the degree of sinfulness.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Amen!

Green Cochoa.