And yet the blind and deaf and lame people Jesus restored adjusted instantly. The lame were able to run and jump immediately afterward. The blind and deaf were able to hear and see and speak and understand immediately afterward.


It sounds like, yes, you believe Jesus is incapable of restoring the deaf, blind, mute, and lame to soundness of mind and body suitable enough to process judgment verbally and visually.


No. I suspect God will give them the gift of hearing, which is the reverse of the gift of speaking in tongues. In other words, I suspect everyone will hear what God is saying in their native language. Of course, it’s also possible Jesus will merely resurrect them with the ability to understand things in the same language. You seem to think both options are totally out of the question.


I’m sorry you think I’m being insensitive. It is not my intention to insult deaf people. My mother-in-law was deaf and it was a pleasure communicating with her. However, do you believe Jesus will resurrect the saints with the ability to hear and understand verbal communications? If so, do you feel this is an insult to deaf people?

Also, thank you for answering my question. It sounds like, yes, you believe Jesus is definitely capable of resurrecting the wicked with the ability to hear and understand verbal communications. However, you also believe He will not do so.


Thank you for answering my question. I did read in your post after this one that you included it as one of your summary statements.


In what sense do you think the Father’s “form” different than Jesus’ “form”? Please include what Ellen wrote about it: “I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, "If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist."


See my response above. Also, it sounds like, yes, you believe God will use verbal and visual communication as well as other forms of communication. Whereas I suspect Jesus will resurrect everyone with the ability to see and hear and understand His verbal and visual presentation. “Above the throne is revealed the cross; and like a panoramic view appear the scenes of Adam's temptation and fall, and the successive steps in the great plan of redemption.” Do you interpret this to mean Jesus will levitate the blind above the throne to feel the cross with their hands? And, do you believe the panoramic scenes described above are viewed in their mind rather than viewed in the sky with the naked eye?


Is it inconsistent with the character of God to be physically present during judgment if doing so results in the wicked suffering and dying? Or, do you think God cannot help what happens to them, that merely being Himself is not inconsistent with His character? If so, do you also believe if God’s radiant light caused sinners to suffer and die that it wouldn’t be inconsistent with His character?


Is your answer equivalent to saying, yes, Jesus will have to supernaturally prevent the wicked from dying prematurely during judgment so that they can live long enough to revisit their sins and participate in vindicating the character and kingdom of God? And, do you think Ellen and Ty would think it is equivalent?


It sounds like you’re saying since the law is not a sentient being it cannot do anything. I agree. But we both agree God acts in harmony with the just and loving demands as recorded in the law. Contrary to the demands recorded in the law, however, God is willing and able to forgive and save penitent sinners. On the other hand, though, God is also willing and able to punish and destroy impenitent sinners, which is clearly in harmony with the demands recorded in the law.

To avoid scaring the loyal beings and causing a second rebellion, God took the necessary measures to earn the legal and moral right to destroy impenitent sinners, which is precisely what law and justice requires. In the end, everyone, loyal and disloyal, will confess it is right and righteous for God to act in harmony with the requirements of law and justice, namely, to punish and destroy the wicked.

I assume you disagree.


I disagree.


Most definitely.

Tom, please respond to 123717 and 123719. Thank you.

Yes, if this were the case it would contradict the statements which tells us that Christ could have fallen and that there was risked involved in His mission.



One such spot where she says this is the famous Baker letter:



If there were a contradiction here, this would apply as much to your position as mine. Could Christ have fallen? If so, why doesn't that contradict this statement that says He could not fail?

No, I don't see this, at least not all of this. Perhaps you could indicate which statements pertain to which point you're wanting to make.

1.If God needed Christ to die in order to have a legal right to forgive those who has sinned, He couldn't have offered Lucifer the pardon He did.

2.I agree that Christ vindicated God's character and the principles of His government (aka His law, or immutability of His law, or perpetuity of His law).

3.One of the quotes spoke of how the cross revealed the nature and the result of sin. This is exactly what I think. The nature of sin is that it destroys its victim, which Christ's death demonstrated. In your view, Christ would have had to have been exterminated as the penalty for sin, it would seem, being set on fire. But He wasn't set on fire. So He didn't by the penalty, or satisfy justice, according to how you perceive these things to be.

I didn't see anything suggesting that God needed to earn the legal right to exterminate sin and sinners in the lake of fire, or anything even remotely close to this.

"Could not fail to accomplish the work" is future positive tense whereas "could have fallen" is past positive tense. In both cases she is confirming the fact Jesus succeeded. Yes, it is true post-incarnate Jesus, as opposed to pre-incarnate Jesus, possessed the ability to sin; however, possessing the ability to sin does not mean God did not know Jesus would certainly succeed. Similarly, saying God "risked all" is not the same thing as saying God did not know Jesus would certainly succeed.

1. Where does Ellen draw the conclusion you do, namely, offering Lucifer pardon proves Jesus did not have to die to earn the legal right to pardon penitent sinners? Or, is this a conclusion you've arrived at independently apart from a plain, Thus saith the Lord? As you know, saying she implied it or it stands to reason is not the same thing as her actually saying so.

2. He also, however, vindicated the law of God by satisfying its just and loving demands. That is, He vindicated the fact law and justice demand death for sin by paying our sin debt of death instead of disregarding its death demands and saving sinners in spite of their sins and in spite of the demands of law and justice.

3. You seem to be overlooking the fact it required two goats on the day of atonement to remove sin from the sanctuary. Jesus earned the legal right to place the sins of the saved upon the head of Satan who then must perish with them in the lake of fire. The fact Jesus paid our sin debt of death is not enough. He must also place our sins upon the head of Satan. Which is also not enough. Satan must also perish with our sins in the lake of fire.

Tom, please respond to 123750. Thank you.

Amen MM.

??? This has nothing to do with anything. Jumping doesn't require any readjustment. I'm sure the people knew how to leap before they became lame. What would you think this has anything do to with anything?



Blind people speak and hear spoken languages, so of course they understood. The deaf couldn't understand spoken language. They could continue to understand sign language.



You seem to have no understanding of how language works.



Well, you can make up anything you wish. There's no evidence that such a thing exists.

If such a thing existed, God would have to be changing the reception of the mind, so that the person heard something different than what was actually spoken, so God would be in effect doing what I suggested, communicating from mind to mind, just in a much more convoluted way.



Pretty absurd, yes. What I suggested is much more reasonable. God communicates with each one in the language they already know, just as God has always done in every recorded cases, thousands of them, throughout all history. No need to make up stuff on the fly.



There's no reason to do so, unless, as I explained, you believe that spoken language is superior to sign language.



Yes, as I'm sure they would.



Anyone who could create the universe obviously could do anything He wanted to. Why do you think this is a reasonable question?



Jesus is a human being. God is not a human being.



I don't know what you'd want me to comment on regarding this.



This is absurd. What about people who don't know how to read? You'd have to suppose God miraculously gives them the ability to read. To have God messing around with one's brains like this violates the principles of free will in innumerable ways. You can't go messing around with the language parts of the brain like you're suggesting without altering in major ways who a person is. This isn't something God would do.

If you had a deaf relative, you should have some understanding about it. Did she sign?

To a deaf person, communicating in sign language is a part of who they are. They wouldn't think of communicating in speech.

There are deaf people, many of them, who refuse to be restored to hearing, even though this is possible, because of their attachment to the deaf community.



These scenes wouldn't mean anything to someone who had no context to understand it.



It would be if this were the purpose of His doing so.



You're asking if God's being Himself is inconsistent with His character? Why do you think this is a reasonable question?




It would be if this were the purpose of God's being physically present. That is, if God did something with the sole intent of causing suffering and death, that would be contrary to His character. Also this idea misses the spiritual aspects of what's happening. It supposes sin is innocuous.



This seems like a rather odd and forced way of looking at things to me.



I think they would also find it odd.



The law is a transcript of His character. How could He not act in harmony with it? He doesn't lie, steal, kill, or do any of the things mentioned in His law. He acts like Jesus Christ acted, who was the law in human flesh.



This is completely circular, MM. You don't see this?

Who created the law, MM? Wasn't it God? If God creates a law which tells Him what to do, how is this any different than His doing what He was going to do anyway?



The law is a transcript of God's character. I've been asking all along how you think it's possible that God would act contrary to His own character.

That the wicked will be destroyed and punished is fine, and to suggest that this is in harmony with the demands of the law, or, which is equivalent, God's character, is fine to. Provided we understand God's character, this will lead to a correct understanding, IMO. Where I see a problem is if we think God will use artificial means to destroy and punish, such as setting people on fire. This would be torture, and is contrary to God's character.



So you're thinking is the following?

1.Jesus Christ desires to destroy.
2.Destruction vindicates God's character.
3.Satan is the restorer, God is the destroyer.
4.God's character is not vindicated by making known that He is the restorer and Satan is the destroyer.

Could have fallen means Christ could have failed. That is, it is possible that Christ could have failed. This could hardly have been the case if God was certain God would succeed, unless you think God can be certain something will happen and the thing not happen.



Sure God could know Jesus would certainly succeed. But if God knew that, it wouldn't be possible for Jesus to fail, just like it's not possible for anything to happen that God is certain won't happen.



Sure it is. That's what "risk" means. Risk is to take an action which has the chance of loss. That means the probability is greater than 0 that the unfortunate event will happen. To say that God is certain the unfortunate event will happen is to say the probability is 0 that this event happens, which is to say that no risk is incurred.