M: Please note that I wrote no such thing. Kland provided an example to demonstrate how illogical it is to draw a certain conclusion. I simply cited another one.

T: MM, what kland wrote is completely logical. Here's the exchange:


Kland's point is that the Bible says that God killed Saul, and that it also says He destroyed the earth with a flood. In the former case, God is said to have done that which He permitted, so why not in the other case as well? Again, this is completely logical and easily understandable. On the other hand, you wrote:


which makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course, I have no empirical evidence for any of this, so take it with a grain of salt. The wicked will suffer for many reasons: they realize more clearly what they lost, they have to stand before the God they rejected, they don't get their way, they are on fire. They will die when God ceases to give them life.

M: I learned a long time ago, Tom, not to assume I know what you mean based on what you’ve written (as evidenced by your comments below).

T: I think the problem here is not reading, or paying attention to, what's actually written. A. G. Maxwell suggested asking two questions when reading another as a way of minimizing these misunderstandings: 1.What did the person actually say? 2.What did the person mean when they said what they actually said? I think these are excellent questions to bear in mind.

M: With this in mind, thank you for clearly answering my question. In other words, yes, you believe capital punishment is arbitrary (according to what you call the primary definition, namely, punishing people to death as opposed to allowing them to die of natural causes).

T: Again, this is what I said, so there was no need to make the "assumption" you made.

M: Do you agree God acted alone when He decided to prevent sinners from suffering the natural causes of sinning? If so, is this not your preferred definition of “arbitrary”?

T: This doesn't really fit. Let me try to give an example. Let's say there's a law against running a stop sign. If you run a stop sign, and get in an accident, that's a natural consequence. On the other hand, if a judge fines you $200 (an amount up to his discretion), that's an arbitrary action. "Arbitrary" in this context is akin to "imposed." So an arbitrary act of power on the part of God is akin to an imposed act of power on the part of God. Now let's say you're about to run a stop sign, and a passenger in your car prevents you from doing this. Is this person acting arbitrarily? No, that doesn't really fit the definition. Hopefully this example helps clarify the concept.

M: We both agree God does something to prevent sinners from suffering and dying the instant they sin.

T: I don't think I've communicated this idea in these words. I have said that God does something to prevent beings who have sinned from dying, specifically, from DA 764, He doesn't leave them to reap the full result of sin.


M: God must, therefore, stop doing it in order for them to suffer and die; otherwise, they would not suffer and die. There is nothing complicated about it. Of course, God must first resurrect them and then enable them to live long enough to suffer and die according to their sinfulness, and to prevent them from dying prematurely of natural causes.

T: No, this isn't necessary. Just consider the fallen angels to see why.

M: I assume you agree with these basic insights. Where we seem to differ is what God does to prevent them from suffering and dying the instant they sin. I believe He shields the radiant firelight of His person and presence. However, I have no idea what you believe. You have yet to explain your theory.

T: I've explained this over and over and over again. It's in DA 764. God does not leave them to reap the full result of their sin. I've also pointed out repeatedly that I find your theory to be superficial, as if the issues involved were physical rather than spiritual.

M: Both happen as result of God's individual discretion. Do you see what I mean?

T: I think this is confusing permissive will and active will. Arbitrary has to do with the latter, while you're doing with the former.

M: On the contrary, I believe God actively prevents them from suffering and dying of natural causes the instant they sin.

T: This isn't on the contrary. God's active will is that people repent and be saved. His permissive will is that they reap the full result of their sin. God's permitting His permissive will to occur is not an arbitrary act of power.

M: This decision is based on individual discretion. Do you agree? That is, God acts on His own when He decides to prevent them from suffering and dying of natural causes the instant they sin. During the final judgment, God will once again act on His own when He decides to stop preventing them from suffering and dying of natural causes. Do you agree? And, do you agree they would not suffer and die if God chose to continue enabling them to live?

T: I gave an example above, which I hope helps understand the concept.

M: Okay. So, you believe sin caused Jesus “great distress” because He felt condemned and separated from God. And you believe the wicked will experience similar “great distress”. That’s all well and fine to say, but you didn’t answer my questions. Here they are again:

1. Do you believe the wicked will die of heart failure caused by extreme emotional anguish?
2. Do you believe comprehending the contrast between their character and God’s character is what will cause them to die of heart failure?
3. Do you believe sin caused Jesus to die of heart failure?
4. Do you believe sin will cause the wicked to die of heart failure?
5. Do you believe Jesus died the second death?
6. What else can we learn about how and why the wicked will suffer and die during the final judgment from studying how and why Jesus suffered and died?

PS – Please explain your answers. Thank you.

T: I answered this. (look for the word "specificity").

M: Do you believe Jesus died of a broken heart? If so, do you think the wicked will die of a broken heart?

T: I answered your questions by suggesting that the death of Christ be studied. Yes, I think Jesus' heart gave out. That seems to be what the DA passage is saying. I think, in regards to the question of how the wicked die, we have DA 764 to look at, as well as the death of Christ. It doesn't appear to me that inspiration gives the specificity you are asking for.

MM: 1. Why do you think the results exclude capital punishment?

K: Because she said, "Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin," What does "left" mean to you? If she states that God sent the flood, why wouldn't she say something like, had Satan and his host then been slain? Seems like an opportune time to say it.

MM: She also wrote, "Even when it was decided that he could no longer remain in heaven, Infinite Wisdom did not destroy Satan." (GC 498) I think "left to reap" means permitted to suffer punishment.

MM: 3. Yes, the quote I posted gives two examples: the flood and S&G. She specifically says God destroyed them.

K: The Bible specifically says God killed Saul.

MM: True. It also says He specifically killed the antediluvians and the inhabitants of S&G.
...
MM: Whether or not this or that is logical depends on one’s premises and assumptions. “The Philistines had slain Saul.” “So Saul died for his transgression.” Where does it say God slew King Saul? I assume it does because you say so but I couldn’t find it.

1Ch 10:14 But he did not inquire of the LORD; therefore He killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.

K: Do you have an example of something God does that would be sinful for us to do?

MM: Yes. Consider the following examples:

"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. {LDE 241.2}

K: Do you disagree with asygo that acts themselves aren't immoral?

MM: Nothing God does is immoral. That's what I hear Arnold saying.

Whereas another explanation is possible, namely, God sometimes causes death and destruction, sometimes He commands holy angels to do it, sometimes He commands holy men to do it, sometimes He permits evil angels to do it, and sometimes He permits evil men to do it.

Each one stands alone. Both are true. When the Bible says God did something He permitted and when it says He did something Himself both are correct.

Do you believe God commanded capital punishment in certain cases? For example, do you believe God commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?

1. Why do you think the results exclude capital punishment?

K: Because she said, "Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin," What does "left" mean to you? If she states that God sent the flood, why wouldn't she say something like, had Satan and his host then been slain? Seems like an opportune time to say it.

M: She also wrote, "Even when it was decided that he could no longer remain in heaven, Infinite Wisdom did not destroy Satan." (GC 498) I think "left to reap" means permitted to suffer punishment.

K: Since you say also, you seem to be indicating there is a conflict. If so, how do you choose what to believe?

3. Yes, the quote I posted gives two examples: the flood and S&G. She specifically says God destroyed them.

K: The Bible specifically says God killed Saul.

M: True. It also says He specifically killed the antediluvians and the inhabitants of S&G.
... Whether or not this or that is logical depends on one’s premises and assumptions. “The Philistines had slain Saul.” “So Saul died for his transgression.” Where does it say God slew King Saul? I assume it does because you say so but I couldn’t find it.
K: You accuse Tom of not being clear and you having no idea what he believes. What do you think a reader of what you have written would conclude you believe? You agree the Bible specifically says God killed Saul. Yet, you say you have no idea where it's found. For your further study: 1Ch 10:14 But he did not inquire of the LORD; therefore He killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.

K: Do you have an example of something God does that would be sinful for us to do?

M: Yes. Consider the following examples: "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. {LDE 241.2}

K: Do you disagree with asygo that acts themselves aren't immoral?

M: Nothing God does is immoral. That's what I hear Arnold saying.

K: If God does not work on the plan of man, what would man do in this case? If man would do certain things to punish the transgressor, to do justice, then it would follow that God does not work that way. I think you are wrong with what Arnold was saying. The question is, are the acts that God (or man) does, are they immoral in themselves, or does it depend upon who's doing them?

Exodus
21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it [is] holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth [any] work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus
20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood [shall be] upon them.
20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood [shall be] upon them.
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Leviticus
24:13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
24:14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.

Numbers
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Leviticus
20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it [is] wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Joshua
7:15 And it shall be, [that] he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel.

Deuteronomy
13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that [is] therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

Joshua
6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that [was] in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Joshua
10:30 And the LORD delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that [were] therein; he let none remain in it; but did unto the king thereof as he did unto the king of Jericho.
10:31 And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish, and encamped against it, and fought against it:
10:32 And the LORD delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that [were] therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah.
10:33 Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left him none remaining.
10:34 And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon, and all Israel with him; and they encamped against it, and fought against it:
10:35 And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that [were] therein he utterly destroyed that day, according to all that he had done to Lachish.
10:36 And Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron; and they fought against it:
10:37 And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that [were] therein; he left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that [were] therein.
10:38 And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought against it:
10:39 And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that [were] therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king.
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.
10:41 And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.
10:42 And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel.

M: Whereas another explanation is possible, namely, God sometimes causes death and destruction, sometimes He commands holy angels to do it, sometimes He commands holy men to do it, sometimes He permits evil angels to do it, and sometimes He permits evil men to do it.

K: Are you trying to say, with God, there is variableness?

M: Each one stands alone. Both are true. When the Bible says God did something He permitted and when it says He did something Himself both are correct.

K: Read 1 Chronicles 10, then see if you would reword that.

M: Do you believe God commanded capital punishment in certain cases? For example, do you believe God commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?

K: Do you believe that was God's ideal will?

K: There is a man who killed an abortion doctor. On the radio, it has his statement saying that he had to do it, it had to be done. Assuming that he in some sort of way professes a relationship to God (for why would an atheist in the grand scheme of things really care if babies are killed anyway), what do you think was his justification for doing it?

T:If God sets people on fire to make them suffer, He is morally responsible for their suffering.

a:I thought we settled it a while back that God does not "set" people on fire. God reveals His glory to the sinner, and the sinner "becomes" on fire. Yes the sinner burns, but since God did not start the fire, and the fire just kind of happens due to God's revealing His glory, He is not morally responsible. Right?

Whether or not this or that is logical depends on one’s premises and assumptions. “The Philistines had slain Saul.” “So Saul died for his transgression.” Where does it say God slew King Saul? I assume it does because you say so but I couldn’t find it.

13So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;

14And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.(1 Chron 10)

Kland seems to assume that God has never directly ended the life of a sinner, that He has only withdrawn His protection and permitted others to end their life. With this in mind he seems to feel God did not employ the forces of nature to destroy the antediluvians or the inhabitants of S&G. Whereas another explanation is possible, namely, God sometimes causes death and destruction, sometimes He commands holy angels to do it, sometimes He commands holy men to do it, sometimes He permits evil angels to do it, and sometimes He permits evil men to do it.

The point of my example above, the one regarding creation, is that one plus one does not always equal two. It depends on whether or not the two things can be added to arrive at two. In the case I cited above, the two things cannot be added. They are referring to two different things, therefore, they cannot be added. Each one stands alone. Both are true. When the Bible says God did something He permitted and when it says He did something Himself both are correct.

When the Bible says God did something He permitted and when it says He did something Himself both are correct.

When the Bible says God did something He permitted and when it says God did something He actually did Himself, both are correct.

M: I learned a long time ago, Tom, not to assume I know what you mean based on what you’ve written (as evidenced by your comments below).

T: I think the problem here is not reading, or paying attention to, what's actually written. A. G. Maxwell suggested asking two questions when reading another as a way of minimizing these misunderstandings: 1.What did the person actually say? 2.What did the person mean when they said what they actually said? I think these are excellent questions to bear in mind.

M:It helps when people clarify what they mean by what they said. Do you agree?

M: With this in mind, thank you for clearly answering my question. In other words, yes, you believe capital punishment is arbitrary (according to what you call the primary definition, namely, punishing people to death as opposed to allowing them to die of natural causes).

T: Again, this is what I said, so there was no need to make the "assumption" you made.

M:Thank you for clarifying and confirming your answer. Now, it’s time for a follow-up question: Do you believe God commanded capital punishment in certain cases? For example, do you believe God commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?

M: Do you agree God acted alone when He decided to prevent sinners from suffering the natural causes of sinning? If so, is this not your preferred definition of “arbitrary”?

T: This doesn't really fit. Let me try to give an example. Let's say there's a law against running a stop sign. If you run a stop sign, and get in an accident, that's a natural consequence. On the other hand, if a judge fines you $200 (an amount up to his discretion), that's an arbitrary action. "Arbitrary" in this context is akin to "imposed." So an arbitrary act of power on the part of God is akin to an imposed act of power on the part of God. Now let's say you're about to run a stop sign, and a passenger in your car prevents you from doing this. Is this person acting arbitrarily? No, that doesn't really fit the definition. Hopefully this example helps clarify the concept.

M:So, are you saying God does not act arbitrarily to prevent sinners from suffering the natural cause and effect relationship between sin and death? Are you saying it is natural for God to do so? If so, would it be unnatural for Him to resurrect sinners and then permit them to suffer and die according to their sinfulness?

M: We both agree God does something to prevent sinners from suffering and dying the instant they sin.

T: I don't think I've communicated this idea in these words. I have said that God does something to prevent beings who have sinned from dying, specifically, from DA 764, He doesn't leave them to reap the full result of sin.


M: God must, therefore, stop doing it in order for them to suffer and die; otherwise, they would not suffer and die. There is nothing complicated about it. Of course, God must first resurrect them and then enable them to live long enough to suffer and die according to their sinfulness, and to prevent them from dying prematurely of natural causes.

T: No, this isn't necessary. Just consider the fallen angels to see why.

M:Do you agree God must stop preventing them from reaping the full result of sinning in order for them to reap the full result of sinning, in order for them to suffer and die according to their sinfulness?

Or, do you think they will suffer and die in spite of the fact God does not leave them to reap the full result of sinning?

M: I assume you agree with these basic insights. Where we seem to differ is what God does to prevent them from suffering and dying the instant they sin. I believe He shields the radiant firelight of His person and presence. However, I have no idea what you believe. You have yet to explain your theory.

T: I've explained this over and over and over again. It's in DA 764. God does not leave them to reap the full result of their sin. I've also pointed out repeatedly that I find your theory to be superficial, as if the issues involved were physical rather than spiritual.

M:Saying God does not leave them to reap the full result of sinning does not explain why they do not die the instant they sin.

If, as you say, sin kills sinners,

why, then, don’t they die when they sin?

How does God prevent sin from killing them?

And, in particular, how does God prevent them from dying prematurely during judgment?

Does sin naturally kill sinners slowly? Is one sin insufficient to cause death? Why is it that “lesser” sins will kill sinners sooner and greater sins will take longer to kill them? Does God do anything to ensure each sinner suffers according to their sinfulness without dying prematurely? What can we learn from how and why Jesus died to help answer these questions?

M: Both happen as result of God's individual discretion. Do you see what I mean?

T: I think this is confusing permissive will and active will. Arbitrary has to do with the latter, while you're doing with the former.

M: On the contrary, I believe God actively prevents them from suffering and dying of natural causes the instant they sin.

T: This isn't on the contrary. God's active will is that people repent and be saved. His permissive will is that they reap the full result of their sin. God's permitting His permissive will to occur is not an arbitrary act of power.

So, you believe God acting alone to resurrect sinners and to permit them to suffer and die according to their sinfulness is not arbitrary? You believe it is perfectly natural?

1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>

M: This decision is based on individual discretion. Do you agree? That is, God acts on His own when He decides to prevent them from suffering and dying of natural causes the instant they sin. During the final judgment, God will once again act on His own when He decides to stop preventing them from suffering and dying of natural causes. Do you agree? And, do you agree they would not suffer and die if God chose to continue enabling them to live?

T: I gave an example above, which I hope helps understand the concept.

It didn’t. So I asked more questions. I hope your answers help clarify what you believe.

M: Okay. So, you believe sin caused Jesus “great distress” because He felt condemned and separated from God. And you believe the wicked will experience similar “great distress”. That’s all well and fine to say, but you didn’t answer my questions. Here they are again:

1. Do you believe the wicked will die of heart failure caused by extreme emotional anguish?
2. Do you believe comprehending the contrast between their character and God’s character is what will cause them to die of heart failure?
3. Do you believe sin caused Jesus to die of heart failure?
4. Do you believe sin will cause the wicked to die of heart failure?
5. Do you believe Jesus died the second death?
6. What else can we learn about how and why the wicked will suffer and die during the final judgment from studying how and why Jesus suffered and died?

PS – Please explain your answers. Thank you.

T: I answered this. (look for the word "specificity").

Here’s what you wrote about it:

Quote:
M: Do you believe Jesus died of a broken heart? If so, do you think the wicked will die of a broken heart?

T: I answered your questions by suggesting that the death of Christ be studied. Yes, I think Jesus' heart gave out. That seems to be what the DA passage is saying. I think, in regards to the question of how the wicked die, we have DA 764 to look at, as well as the death of Christ. It doesn't appear to me that inspiration gives the specificity you are asking for.

Are you saying the Bible doesn’t specifically say Jesus died of hear failure?

If so, why, then, do you keep on insisting we study why and how Jesus suffered and died in order to understand how and why the wicked will suffer and die?

Also, are you saying there isn’t enough Bible evidence to answer the 6 questions I asked above?