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.


God also said, "I create evil" (Isa 45:7). If you believe He didn't create evil, is it possible He didn't create the world and everything on it?


True. It also says He specifically killed the antediluvians and the inhabitants of S&G.


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}


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

Classic.

I liked Kland's illogical example even better.

Given what you wrote, I find it odd that you would find kland to be illogical.

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.

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). 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).


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”?


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


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


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.

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.

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.



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



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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

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?

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.