The law is a transcript of God's character. Sin is the antithesis of the law, which is to say that which is contrary to God's character. It is to be unlike Him. Notice from the SOP quote:

"By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire."

This is saying the same thing, that "the sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law"?

The problem with the view that God kills the wicked by doing something apart from just being Himself is that the statement says that the death from sin is "inevitable." If it's only inevitable because God kills the wicked, that's just seconding Satan's argument. He has accused God of being arbitrary, and this would indeed be arbitrary.

The other problem is that it says that the angels did not understand that the wicked would reap that which they had sown, the glory of God consuming them? What would they have understood instead?

What's the angel's misunderstanding? What's the true understanding?

I have an answer to this. Here it is. The angel's would have understood:
1) God executed the wicked.

What they should understand is:
2) The wicked reap that which they have sown, and the glory of God destroys them.

They would have mistaken what God had allowed as something God was arbitrarily doing. This would have allowed an evil seed of doubt to arise. This is exactly what the paragraphs are saying! Look:

quote:

---

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life...God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.

---

Notice it says, "a doubt of God's goodness would have remained." Why? What leads to this doubt? What were the angels in danger of misunderstanding?

The angels would not have seen the results of sin - that it causes death, pain and great woe. Not seeing that some would have been tempted to doubt the wisdom and love of God in slaying Satan.

Regarding the tree of life, your observation about the tree of life yielding twelve kinds of fruit, - possibly a different one each month; possibly twelve kinds each month, - and that it will be consumed repeatedly is reasonable. In Is 66 I think we’re told that the nations will go up to worship monthly. So the tree will likely be eaten repeatedly, possibly monthly.

However, the tree of life was guarded by angels to prevent the immortalization of sin. It likely IS necessary to eat the fruit of the tree repeatedly, but the tree is nevertheless capable of immortalizing sinners. Does that not teach us something about the nature of sin, the limits of it and the ultimate sovereignty of God?

That is the key issue in all of this. Sin looses its personal nature, and the fact that the transgressor is in rebellion against a personal God is eclipsed, when sin is viewed as having a fatalistic outcome. This view strips God of His personal moral authority.

Tom,

This is how I see the subject. If by approaching me you know that you will cause my death, you are killing me, no matter how you try to slice it. The use of euphemisms to describe the process won’t change the fact. By bringing sinners in contact with His glory, God is deliberately choosing to deprive them of life. As He has kept sinners alive for 6000 years in a restricted place of His universe without consuming them, He could continue to do so for ever. Although God is a consuming fire to sin, He has control over His own attributes, and as He made the decision to not consume sin initially, He will make the decision to destroy it finally.

"Today men have almost filled the cup of their iniquity. The Lord does not execute the death penalty on the transgressors of His law until they have heard the warning and have been given opportunity to see the fallacy of the doctrines they believe. How wonderful is His forbearance and patience! He is putting a constraint on His own attributes. Omnipotence is exerted over Omnipotence." (18MR 187)

You said:

quote:

---

"This" has nothing to do with whether or not the law of God is good. It has to do with the fact that the wicked have so wrecked themselves by sin that God's glory consumes them. Had God allowed this to happen immediately, it would have appeared to the onlookers that God was executing them, and this would have resulted in an evil seed of doubt.

---

Other texts can give us an ampler view of the subject:

“From the first the great controversy had been upon the law of God. Satan had sought to prove that God was unjust, that His law was faulty, and the good of the universe required it to be changed. In attacking the law he aimed to overthrow the authority of its Author” (PP 69).
“Satan resolved to make an effort to overthrow the government of God, and set up a kingdom of his own. … He complained of the supposed defects in the management of heavenly things, and sought to fill the minds of the angels with his disaffection. ... If he could not defend himself, he must accuse, in order to appear just and righteous, and to make God appear arbitrary and exacting. ... God could have destroyed Satan and all his sympathizers as easily as one can pick up a pebble and cast it to the earth. But by so doing he would have given a precedent for the exercise of force. All the compelling power is found only under Satan's government. ... In the councils of heaven it was decided that principles must be acted upon that would not at once destroy Satan's power; for it was God's purpose to place things upon an eternal basis of security. Time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his government. The heavenly universe must see worked out the principles which Satan declared were superior to God's principles. God's order must be contrasted with Satan's order. The corrupting principles of Satan's rule must be revealed. The principles of righteousness expressed in God's law must be demonstrated as unchangeable, perfect, eternal. (RH, September 7, 1897)

If God had destroyed Satan at first, this would have made Him appear to be arbitrary and exacting. However, after the cross, after Satan murdered the Son of God, the principles of Satan's government were amply demonstrated, and now, when God does destroy sin and sinners, it will be seen that He will do that not because He is arbitrary, but “for the good of His subjects and for their safety” (12 MR 208). “It is in mercy to the universe that God will finally destroy the rejecters of his grace” (GC 543).

“The unfathomable love of God for the human race in giving his Son to die for them, was made manifest. Christ was revealed in all his self-sacrificing love and purity. When the justice of God was expressed in judicial sentence, declaring the final disposition of Satan, that he should be utterly consumed with all those who ranked under his banner, all heaven rang with hallelujahs” (The Present Truth, February 18, 1886).

Mark: The angels would not have seen the results of sin - that it causes death, pain and great woe. Not seeing that some would have been tempted to doubt the wisdom and love of God in slaying Satan.

Tom: What you're saying here to me appears to be entirely reasonable, and I'll restate it in my own words to confirm I'm understanding you correctly.

If God had not allowed sin to bear its fruit, and God had preemptively destroyed Satan, then it would not have been clear that sin was a bad thing, and God's destruction of Satan would have been misunderstood.

OK, that's a valid point. However, it's not addressing the context of what EGW is saying. She says:

1) The destruction of the wicked is:
a) Not an arbitrary act of power of God
b) Caused by the wicked separating themselves from God, the source of life
c) A result of what the wicked have sown
d) A result of the wicked so placing themselves out of harmony with God that His presence becomes to them a consuming fire

It is in regards to *these points* that EGW says, "the angels did not immediately understand this."

We need to understand what "this" is. This is what I laid out. That's what is in the paragraph immediately above where EGW says, "The angels did not understand this."

The evil seed of doubt would have arisen because the act of destroying the wicked would have been understand along different lines than what EGW laid out in the previous paragraph. That's the clear intent of what she wrote.


Mark: Regarding the tree of life, your observation about the tree of life yielding twelve kinds of fruit, - possibly a different one each month; possibly twelve kinds each month, - and that it will be consumed repeatedly is reasonable. In Is 66 I think we’re told that the nations will go up to worship monthly. So the tree will likely be eaten repeatedly, possibly monthly.

However, the tree of life was guarded by angels to prevent the immortalization of sin. It likely IS necessary to eat the fruit of the tree repeatedly, but the tree is nevertheless capable of immortalizing sinners. Does that not teach us something about the nature of sin, the limits of it and the ultimate sovereignty of God?

Tom: Man was created with a certain amount of vital force, 20 times what we have now I think EGW says somewhere. It was God's intent that this vital force be diminished so that man could die (the first death). God did this in mercy.

This is how I understand the issue of God's not allowing man to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It shows in principle that God did not want to immortalize sin, but it is IMO absurd to suggest that simply by the fact of eating that tree that Adam and Eve would have lived forever when every heart beat comes only by God's specific action. God is not just the Creator but Sustainer. If he didn't want them to continue living, He could just stop sustaining them. He is not bound by fruit they may have eaten.

Mark: That is the key issue in all of this. Sin looses its personal nature, and the fact that the transgressor is in rebellion against a personal God is eclipsed, when sin is viewed as having a fatalistic outcome. This view strips God of His personal moral authority.

Tom: I don't see this at all. Please expand this thought. It sounds interesting.

You wrote yourself that sin results in "death, pain and great woe." Does it result in pain only because God visits pain upon people? Does it result in "great woe" only because God does something to make people suffer? Or does sin in and of itself result in pain and great woe? Does the fact that sin results in pain lessen God's moral authority in any way? Does is make sin not personal? I'm not following your thought Mark.

If pain can result from sin as a result, why not death? Especially when it leads people to separate themselves from God, the source of life, and makes them out of harmony with God. Do people inherently have life in themselves? If not, wouldn't cutting oneself off from God necessarily result in death?

Tom: Before responding to Rosangela's post, I would like to thank each of you that have been dialoging with me. Even if we are not seeing eye to eye on this, discussing it is very helpful. Also I have appreciated the tone. Although there has been a spirited discussion, the sharpness has been directed towards the points being discussed, and not a personal level, which is great.

Rosangela: Tom,

This is how I see the subject. If by approaching me you know that you will cause my death, you are killing me, no matter how you try to slice it. The use of euphemisms to describe the process won’t change the fact.

Tom: Why is it important to look at the desctruction of the wicked as God killing them? Christ says, "All they that hate me, love death." (love here meaning "choose"). Why can't we look at it as the wicked choosing death, and God in mercy honoring their choice? After all, that's what EGW says in GC 541 (Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God.)

Rosangela: By bringing sinners in contact with His glory, God is deliberately choosing to deprive them of life. As He has kept sinners alive for 6000 years in a restricted place of His universe without consuming them, He could continue to do so for ever. Although God is a consuming fire to sin, He has control over His own attributes, and as He made the decision to not consume sin initially, He will make the decision to destroy it finally.

Tom: I agree with this completely. The point is that God has been actively doing something to prevent sinners from not being consumed. God quits doing that, and they are consumed.

I liked the way you put this: "Although God is a consuming fire to sin, He has control over His own attributes, and as He made the decision to not consume sin initially, He will make the decision to destroy it finally." Very well put!



Rosangela: You said:

quote:"This" has nothing to do with whether or not the law of God is good. It has to do with the fact that the wicked have so wrecked themselves by sin that God's glory consumes them. Had God allowed this to happen immediately, it would have appeared to the onlookers that God was executing them, and this would have resulted in an evil seed of doubt.

Tom: Whoa! I'm talking about a specific "this". It's this "this" that I'm talking about:

quote:

---

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

---

"This" has a specific reference here, which is to what she wrote in the preceeding paragraph.


Rosangela: Other texts can give us an ampler view of the subject:

“From the first the great controversy had been upon the law of God. Satan had sought to prove that God was unjust, that His law was faulty, and the good of the universe required it to be changed. In attacking the law he aimed to overthrow the authority of its Author” (PP 69).
“Satan resolved to make an effort to overthrow the government of God, and set up a kingdom of his own. … He complained of the supposed defects in the management of heavenly things, and sought to fill the minds of the angels with his disaffection. ... If he could not defend himself, he must accuse, in order to appear just and righteous, and to make God appear arbitrary and exacting. ... God could have destroyed Satan and all his sympathizers as easily as one can pick up a pebble and cast it to the earth. But by so doing he would have given a precedent for the exercise of force. All the compelling power is found only under Satan's government. ... In the councils of heaven it was decided that principles must be acted upon that would not at once destroy Satan's power; for it was God's purpose to place things upon an eternal basis of security. Time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his government. The heavenly universe must see worked out the principles which Satan declared were superior to God's principles. God's order must be contrasted with Satan's order. The corrupting principles of Satan's rule must be revealed. The principles of righteousness expressed in God's law must be demonstrated as unchangeable, perfect, eternal. (RH, September 7, 1897)

Tom: This is the same thing she's talking about in the chapter in question, "It Is Finished." In fact places are word for word the same. However, it is not dealing with the "this" which was quoted above, which is dealing with the destruction of the wicked.

It is certainly true that had God destroyed Satan at the beginning that it would not have been clear to the unfallen beings what the principles of Satan's government were. The fact that this is true does not mean that it is not *also* true that had God allowed Satan and his hosts to reap the full result of their sin that they would not have understood "this" (which is the first paragraph quoted above in DA 764).


Rosangela: If God had destroyed Satan at first, this would have made Him appear to be arbitrary and exacting. However, after the cross, after Satan murdered the Son of God, the principles of Satan's government were amply demonstrated, and now, when God does destroy sin and sinners, it will be seen that He will do that not because He is arbitrary, but “for the good of His subjects and for their safety” (12 MR 208). “It is in mercy to the universe that God will finally destroy the rejecters of his grace” (GC 543).

Tom: I agree with this statement completely. It is well put, and a good and valid point. However, it doesn't address "this," which is that Satan and his hosts have places themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire so that His glory will destroy them.

Rosangela:
“The unfathomable love of God for the human race in giving his Son to die for them, was made manifest. Christ was revealed in all his self-sacrificing love and purity. When the justice of God was expressed in judicial sentence, declaring the final disposition of Satan, that he should be utterly consumed with all those who ranked under his banner, all heaven rang with hallelujahs” (The Present Truth, February 18, 1886).

Tom: This seems to be saying in essence what Rev. 6:9-11 says:

"9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

I see both this and the EGW quote being in harmony with what I have been presenting. All those who have sided with God will be glad when sin is no more. That is because they recognize the pain that sin causes to God, and what a terrible thing sin is:

quote:

---

Those who think of the result of hastening or hindering the gospel think of it in relation to themselves and to the world. Few think of its relation to God. Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God. Every departure from the right, every deed of cruelty, every failure of humanity to reach His ideal, brings grief to Him. When there came upon Israel the calamities that were the sure result of separation from God,--subjugation by their enemies, cruelty, and death, --it is said that "His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel." "In all their affliction He was afflicted: . . . and He bare them, and carried them all the days of old." Judges 10:16; Isaiah 63:9. (Ed 263)

---

I'll have to limit my comments. I agree with Rose. Regarding the tree of life, it is like the tree of knowledge - both serve a real and vital purpose. In heaven we will likely partake of both, and other special varieties of fruit such as grapes and other vegitation. Since flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom, nutrition will be on a different plane - one that's even more vital and delectable and satisfying than today's nutrition.

Rosangela: Tom, I think our whole apple of discord lies here. Is God active or passive in the destruction of sin?

Tom: As you pointed out previously:

quote:

---

As He has kept sinners alive for 6000 years in a restricted place of His universe without consuming them, He could continue to do so for ever. Although God is a consuming fire to sin, He has control over His own attributes, and as He made the decision to not consume sin initially, He will make the decision to destroy it finally.

---

God has control over His own attributes, as you put it, so has been able to keep the wicked alive, even though He is a consuming fire to sin. God actively chooses to stop this control over His own attributes, and that results in the death of the wicked.

Rosangela: If God deliberately puts an end to sin, then the death of the wicked is not just a natural result.

Tom: Is pain a result of sin? When people sin, does God visit them with pain? Is misery a result of sin? Does God make people miserable because they sin? Or does sin make people miserable?

If the Spirit of Prophesy is correct, and God is the source of life, and the wicked choose to separate themselves from God, how could they possibly live? Do they have live inherent in themselves? Are they self-existent?

Rosangela: Sinners have proved to be unworthy of life, therefore they are deprived of it.

Tom: None of us are worthy of live. God gives us life by His grace. Some choose to receive God's grace, and others choose to reject it.

Rosangela: Every time God deprived sinners of life (the flood, Sodom, etc.), it was in mercy to others. Sin is infectious and is constantly spreading. Therefore, God removes the incurable offenders so that He can save those who can still be saved. That’s what happened in the past and that’s what will happen in the end. At least this is how I see it.

Tom: IMO this is missing the whole point of what the Great Controversy is about and what the chapter "It Is Finished" is discussing.

It's a challenge to put this briefly, but I'll try. Maybe it would make a good topic to expand on.

Basically war arose in heaven and a third of the angels were lost. We're not told what the issues were, but we can surmise based on Isa. 14, the Fall, and how God has dealt with the problem. Basically I see three issues that Satan raised:

1) God is not trustworthy.
2) Sin does not cause death.
3) Self-exaltation is the way to freedom.

God has sought to disprove these allegations on the basis of evidence, the best evidence being given through Jesus Christ.

The whole point of this thread is that God *cannot* get rid of sinners by eliminating sin. A sinner arose in the first place when sin did not exist. This shows in and of itself that simply getting rid of sinners does not ensure that sin will not arise again. God must deal with the allegations that were raised in a convincing manner, or else an evil seed would be planted. "Maybe Satan was right, and God is severe, cruel, harsh and arbitrary after all."

Notice the second allegation. Satan accused God of lying when He said that sin would result in death. As EGW points out, the wicked place themselves so our of harmony with God that His presence is to them a consuming fire. If God had not controlled His own attributes, as you put it (and I think is a good way of putting it), then Satan and his hosts would have been immediately destroyed. But the angels, before Christ's death, would not have understood that death was the inevitable result of sin, and an evil seed of doubt would have remained. The death of Christ shows that sin *does* result in death, which means that God can cease controling His attribtutes, and the wicked are destroyed in such a way that there is no evil seed of doubt. (I have no problem with seeing what God does here as active).

The problem with divorcing death from sin, saying that it is not a consequence of sin, is that death is the "inevitable" result of sin, and the angels would not have understood this had the wicked been consumed immediately. That is, they would have confused the consumption of the wicked with something else. With what? With God's executing them, that's what. By waiting until the death of Christ, the angels are able to understand that "the wicked have placed themselves so out of harmony with God that His presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of God destroys them."

They understand that the death of the wicked is a direct result of a choice the wicked have made in cutting themselves off from God.

This is precisely what the paragraphs in DA 764 say.

Tom,
I hope you are having a happy sabbath. I will have many activities at church tomorrow, therefore I will reply to your post today. I will not refer to the points in which we are basically in agreement, just to those with which I have problems.

quote:

---

Is pain a result of sin? When people sin, does God visit them with pain? Is misery a result of sin? Does God make people miserable because they sin? Or does sin make people miserable?

---

That’s not my point; of course sin produces bad results of itself. The point is: if God chooses to destroy sin, He is inevitably choosing to destroy sinners. And if the destruction of sinners is a result of God’s choice and intervention, it is not just a natural result. Of course everything is the natural result of something else, but there may be something more to it. As I said before, the punishment of a criminal is the natural result of his acts, but it is also a penalty imposed by the State.

quote:

---

None of us are worthy of live. God gives us life by His grace.

---

As I see it, we are made worthy of life by Christ’s blood. Anyway, I was just echoing Ellen White’s words:
“But those who have not, through repentance and faith, secured pardon, must receive the penalty of transgression,-- ‘the wages of sin.’ They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, ‘according to their works,’ but finally ending in the second death. Since it is impossible for God, consistently with his justice and mercy, to save the sinner in his sins, He deprives him of the existence which his transgressions have forfeited, and of which he has proved himself unworthy” (GC 544).

quote:

---

Every time God deprived sinners of life (the flood, Sodom, etc.), it was in mercy to others. Sin is infectious and is constantly spreading. Therefore, God removes the incurable offenders so that He can save those who can still be saved. That’s what happened in the past and that’s what will happen in the end. At least this is how I see it.

Tom: IMO this is missing the whole point of what the Great Controversy is about and what the chapter "It Is Finished" is discussing.

---

I was not trying to cover all the aspects involved in the Great Controversy, but was again just echoing some of EGW’s words:

“Like the waters of the flood, the fires of the great day declare God's verdict that the wicked are incurable. ... In mercy to the world, God blotted out its wicked inhabitants in Noah's time. In mercy he destroyed the corrupt dwellers in Sodom. Through the deceptive power of Satan, the workers of iniquity obtain sympathy and admiration, and are thus constantly leading others to rebellion. It was so in Cain's and in Noah's day, and in the time of Abraham and Lot; it is so in our time. It is in mercy to the universe that God will finally destroy the rejecters of his grace.” (GC 543).

quote:

---

The death of Christ shows that sin *does* result in death...

---

This is another facet of this view I have problems with. Its main point of emphasis is that Christ’s death was to *show* that sin results in death. Every time you spoke about the cross showing that sin results in death, you had in mind the sinless inhabitants of the universe (who wouldn’t understand Satan’s death). What exactly did the cross do for the sinful inhabitants of this world?

Rose: I think our whole apple of discord lies here. Is God active or passive in the destruction of sin?

Tom: This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.

The question is not whether God is active or passive but whether it is arbitrary on the part of God, that is, unilateral justice of God. Or is it a justice of which the sinner himself is the author.