Why does she have to draw the conclusion? I drew the conclusion based on her statement that God offered Lucifer pardon without Christ's having to die.



I arrived at the conclusion base on a plain "Thus saith the Lord," namely that God offered Lucifer pardon again and again on the condition of submission and repentance.







The inevitable result of sin is death. DA 764. Christ's death demonstrated this fact, and made it possible for God to permit Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin without being misunderstood. Also DA 764.



The blood of bulls and goats could not remove sin. That's Hebrews. Only Christ removes sin.



Satan suffers for his responsibility for both the saved and unsaved. I've pointed this out to you many, many times, yet you persist in omitting this. Why?



I hope you note the part in bold, and don't neglect this in the future.

There's nothing arbitrary in the process, which your description depicts from beginning to end. You see no relation to sin and its results. Everything is artificial, imposed, arbitrary, uncaused.



Same comment. Not enough. Not enough for what? The "just and loving demands of the law" I'm sure you'd say. But there's no law that says any of the things you are asserting. And who gave the law? God. So to say that God is required to do something which He Himself said He had to do is simply saying that God has to do what's in harmony with His character. This simply begs the question as to why it's in harmony with God's character to do the things you say He will do.

Thank you. God is good!

Tom, you're taking passages from an inspired author who wrote about Jesus possessing the ability to fail well after He succeeded and trying to interpret them to mean God did not know with absolute certainty Jesus would succeed. Does this seem right and reasonable to you?

We both agree that Ellen wrote in harmony with the Bible, that nothing she wrote contradicts the Bible or adds to or subtracts from the Bible, therefore, you should be able to prove from the Bible alone that the Father did not know with absolute certainty that Jesus would indeed succeed on the cross. Please post those passages here so we can study them together.

However, if you believe no such insights exist in the Bible, is it possible you are misinterpreting or misapplying what Ellen wrote about it?

And, is it possible that all the places in the OT where it describes Jesus succeeding on the cross that it means God knew with absolute certainty that Jesus would indeed succeed on the cross? If not, why, then, do you think all those prophecies describe Jesus succeeding and that not one of them indicate or imply He might not succeed?

Or, do you think it is safer and wiser to trust your interpretation or application of what Ellen wrote about it and assume, as you have, that it obviously, definitely means God did not know with absolute certainty Jesus would succeed?

1.This is a lot more reasonable than you're thinking that when EGW said "Christ could not fail" she was talking about the subject of foreknowledge. When she said "Christ could not fail" she meant that Christ only could fully represent the father, as opposed to an angel. This is clear from the context.

On the other hand, the statements I've mentioned, which speak of the risk involved, *are* pertinent to the subject.

2.There could only risk involved if there was the actual possibility of failure.



You don't understand the flaw in your argument here? That Ellen White does not contradict the Bible does not imply that everything she wrote is in the Bible.

For example, consider a Bible Commentary, say the SDA Bible Commentary on Romans. Let's say it doesn't contradict Romans. That doesn't mean everything in the Commentary is in Romans. You can understand that, can't you? And see that it wouldn't be reasonable to ask where in Romans some given statement in the Commentary is found? Yet this is what you're asking.



You're whole reasoning here is off. If my interpretation of her writings led to a contradiction, *that* would be an argument that the interpretation was off.

The important concept is the one of risk. That risk was involved in evident in Scripture. Many have seen this. Indeed, there's an excellent book on the subject entitled "The God Who Risks" based only on Scripture.



Only if it weren't possible for Jesus to fail; only if risk was not involved.



What would the purpose of such a prophecy be? What would it look like?



EGW wrote the following:



Common sense and reason dictates that if God was absolutely certain that Christ wouldn't fail, then it's not possible that Christ could have failed. Conversely, if Christ might have failed, if that was an actual possibility, then God could not have been certain that wouldn't happen.

I’m sorry you feel my question “has nothing to do with anything”. Your comment makes me feel like you think I’m stupid. Do you think I’m stupid because I asked a question you think is totally irrelevant? If not, then you might want to choose your words more carefully next time. Just a suggestion; or perhaps it’s a request.

The movies portray the lame people Jesus healed getting up slowly, unsteadily, on weak and faltering legs. However, I believe they were instantly capable of running and jumping as if they had never been born lame. Do you agree? Or, do you think the people who were born lame took some time to learn how to crawl, walk, run, and leap sort of like babies do?


Is there any evidence in the Bible that the deaf people Jesus healed were incapable of communicating verbally immediately after they were healed? Where it says, “He maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak,” is it your opinion they were incapable of communicating verbally, that it took some time and training before they were able to communicate verbally?


You seem to think Jesus will not or cannot resurrect sinners without their former handicaps. Where in the Bible does it say such a thing?


I cited two possibilities. You separated them. See my second option below.


Did you make up what you said? Or, do you have a plain, Thus saith the Lord? Also, your idea means the final judgment will take place non-verbally, that everything will happen in the minds of sinners. Which also means no one will know what’s going on with the sinners around them. Not even the watching righteous will know what’s going on.


Did you misread what I wrote?


Again, did you misread what I wrote? Or, do you really believe Jesus will insult the saints by resurrecting them without their former handicaps?


What question? I merely acknowledged what you wrote about it. That is, you believe Jesus possesses the power to resurrect the wicked without their former handicaps but that He will choose not to.


You didn’t answer my question. How are their forms different?


I didn’t. I asked you to include her insight in your answer to my question above. Jesus told Ellen that the Father has a form like His. You seem to think the Father’s form is different than Jesus’ form. Why?


My deaf mother-in-law works very hard to communicate verbally, and she does a wonderful job of it. She also reads lips and does not communicate using sign language. She knows how to sign, and is very good at it, but she prefers to read lips and to communicate verbally. The idea that Jesus will resurrect deaf people without their former handicap does not insult or offend her in any way.

Also, saying my thoughts and ideas are “absurd” is offensive, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making such harsh judgments. You are an intelligent and godly man and, as such, I am confident you can carry on a dialog and discussion without making such offensive comments. Please consider doing so. Thank you.


You didn’t answer my question. Please do so. Thank you.


Do you think He will be unaware of the fact that His physical presence is causing them to experience unimaginable suffering? If not, what do you think He will feel about it at the time? And, do you think it will cause Him to leave so His physical presence no longer causes them to suffer so? If not, why do you think He remain in the vicinity knowing it is causing them such intense suffering?


Just because I believe sin is not what will cause the wicked to die the second death it does not mean I believe sin is harmless or innocuous. You believe being sinful is sufficient in and of itself to cause the wicked to die the second death. But you also believe the fact God is righteous and physically present will cause the wicked to suffer above and beyond what you believe it natural and sufficient to cause them to die the second death. This seems inconsistent with your view of God, that is, to be the reason for such intense suffering which is above and beyond what you believe is natural and sufficient.


Do you totally and completely disagree with every aspect of it? Or, are there parts of it you agree with? If so, please articulate your thoughts. Thank you.


You take this for granted; however, one of the purposes of the GC is to confirm it. If God acts in harmony with the law, will everything work out right for everyone?” - that’s the question being decided right now. The answer is still being weighed in the balances. We believe it will play out in God’s favor because we choose to believe Him. In the end, everyone will conclude God’s law is indeed holy, just, and good, and that He is also holy, just, and good for acting in harmony with it.


See my response above.


Jesus employed fire to destroy thousands of men, women, and children without violating the law or being in contradiction of Himself. There is nothing arbitrary about Jesus executing justice and judgment. In doing so He is merely acting in harmony with the just and loving demands of law and justice.


Yes, to 1 and 2; no to 3 and 4. Jesus desires to do what is right and righteous, no matter how much He wishes circumstances didn’t force Him to punish and destroy unredeemable sinners. And, when Jesus finally destroys the wicked, they will praise Him to doing the right thing.

You didn't post a plain, Thus saith the Lord, from either the Bible or the SOP that says "offering Lucifer pardon proves Jesus did not have to die to earn the legal right to pardon penitent sinners". Please do so. And, please do not expect me to believe your private interpretation is inspired.


Ellen wrote, "Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused."

She enumerates three things: 1) Satan will suffer for his sins, 2) for the sins of the saved, and 3) for causing the loss of souls. You, on the other hand, do not believe Satan will suffer as if he himself committed the sins of the saved. You believe he will merely suffer for tempting them to sin. You believe one and two above are one and the same; whereas, Ellen plainly says otherwise.

I apologize. I'll try to be more careful how I phrase things.



No.



It would depend upon whether they knew how to walk before they were hurt or not. I would assume they did know how to walk. In this case a minimal amount of readjustment would be necessary.



Like what?



Making the deaf to hear means being able to hear sounds. Making the dumb to speak means healing a vocal problem allowing someone who was unable to speak able to speak, such as happened with the father of John the Baptist.

I'm sure someone who was deaf, who didn't know spoken language, would have to learn it, and would continue to use sign language. This happens today. People who are deaf, and get Cochlear implants still continue to communicate in sign language, even though they've obtained the ability to hear. Being able to hear makes it possible to learn a language they may not have known before, like English. English (or any spoken language) is very difficult for the deaf to learn, although some are able to do so. One's native language never changes. It is what it is. If you obtain the ability to speak some other language, your native language still remains. Even if the deaf learned a spoken language, sign would still be their native language, the language that they would think in, reason in, pray in, and be most comfortable with. It's absurd to think that God would communicate with a deaf person, who had all their lives signed, in any other way than through sign language.



The SOP says they'll be resurrected with the same bodies they had. Even if they could hear, that wouldn't change anything. Sign would still be their native language.



No, there's lots of examples of God speaking to people in their native language. Has God ever spoken to you? If so, what language did He use?



Please don't do this. Please don't misrepresent what I say. I was careful in how I worded this, and this care is wasted when you represent things this way. If you check back with what I wrote, you'll see that I was very careful to make clear that I wasn't saying "everything will happen in the minds of sinners." I know you're aware of this, because in your previous post you spoke of how I had said there were things happening that were seen and heard.



There will be billions of people present, all of them being individually judged. We're told that each one is made aware of their sins, where they deviated from the right path, and where God tried to reach them. How do you think this happens if not by God's communicating with them mind to mind?



No, I don't think so. I pointed out that there is no reason to resurrect a deaf person with the ability to know a spoken language unless you feel that spoken language is superior to sign language.



Asking if I thought Jesus was capable of resurrecting the wicked in a certain way.



We're told they will be resurrected in the same bodies they went to the grave with.



Please explain to me why you think this isn't answering your question. It seems obvious to me that it is.



When she asked a form like Himself, she was asking "a form, like you have a form," not "a form which looks like your form."



I think you know nothing of deaf culture. Your comments here would be offensive to someone in the deaf community.



Ok, I'll try to choose some less offensive word. I'd suggest doing some research on the deaf community. Try wiki. They have their own culture, and what you've written is insensitive, although you're obviously doing so innocently.



What you wrote was also very offensive. You're just not aware of it. I'm sorry I offended you. I didn't think it would. You clearly don't know how language works, or the deaf community. I'm sorry I wasn't more tactful.

Have to go now. More later. (probably quite a few hours).

Tom, yes, deaf people are fond of signing, and take great pleasure in it. But you seem to be shocked that I also believe some deaf people, like my mother-in-law, also enjoy communicating verbally. However, I assume you agree with me the deaf will not be offended when Jesus resurrects them without their handicap?


Do you think any part of the final judgment will happen verbally or visually? If so, please explain your answer. Thank you.


I believe the Father has a form like Jesus' form. I also believe the Father has a form like our form. We were made in His image and likeness. I also believe we will be able to sit on our Father's lap and listen to Him tell stories. Does your view of the Father allow you to anticipate sitting on His lap?


Okay. Thanx.

No, I'm not shocked, because I know something of the deaf community. If your mother's preference was to communicate verbally, not just to you but to the deaf as well, then, undoubtedly, sign language was not her native language. If sign were her native language, she could enjoy communicating in another language just as other people enjoy in communicating in foreign languages.



Those in the Deaf community don't view it as a handicap. This is another example of insensitivity. (I should have capitalized it before. "Deaf," as opposed to "deaf," differentiates between someone who is in the community as opposed to someone who cannot hear.



You didn't answer my question. You didn't even address it. I already answered your question. I answered it, and pointed out that I answered it. Why need I answer it again? Why when I ask you a question to do you not answer it, but instead ask me a question I've already answered?



You mean a human form?



You mean a human form?



How does this fit into our conversation?

I must say I find your view of God's character to be rather schizophrenic. On the one hand, you picture God as One who would have us sin on His lap while telling us stories. This is a rather childish view, but in an endearing way. This isn't a something I've thought of, but I find no fault in it. Certainly God desires that we view Him as our Father, and the activity you're suggesting is a Father-like activity, although one usually considers it in the context of children.

But you also hold to the idea that God will use fire to arbitrarily (as per Webster's primary definition) punish people. These (i.e. these two views of God's character) seem like strange bedfellows.

You didn’t answer my question. Please do so. Thank you.


Do you think He will be unaware of the fact that His physical presence is causing them to experience unimaginable suffering? If not, what do you think He will feel about it at the time? And, do you think it will cause Him to leave so His physical presence no longer causes them to suffer so? If not, why do you think He remain in the vicinity knowing it is causing them such intense suffering?


Just because I believe sin is not what will cause the wicked to die the second death it does not mean I believe sin is harmless or innocuous. You believe being sinful is sufficient in and of itself to cause the wicked to die the second death. But you also believe the fact God is righteous and physically present will cause the wicked to suffer above and beyond what you believe it natural and sufficient to cause them to die the second death. This seems inconsistent with your view of God, that is, to be the reason for such intense suffering which is above and beyond what you believe is natural and sufficient.


Do you totally and completely disagree with every aspect of it? Or, are there parts of it you agree with? If so, please articulate your thoughts. Thank you.


You take this for granted; however, one of the purposes of the GC is to confirm it. If God acts in harmony with the law, will everything work out right for everyone?” - that’s the question being decided right now. The answer is still being weighed in the balances. We believe it will play out in God’s favor because we choose to believe Him. In the end, everyone will conclude God’s law is indeed holy, just, and good, and that He is also holy, just, and good for acting in harmony with it.


See my response above.


Jesus employed fire to destroy thousands of men, women, and children without violating the law or being in contradiction of Himself. There is nothing arbitrary about Jesus executing justice and judgment. In doing so He is merely acting in harmony with the just and loving demands of law and justice.


Yes, to 1 and 2; no to 3 and 4. Jesus desires to do what is right and righteous, no matter how much He wishes circumstances didn’t force Him to punish and destroy unredeemable sinners. And, when Jesus finally destroys the wicked, they will praise Him to doing the right thing.