As Jesus intercedes for each individual to the universe, assuring that this sinner is safe to save, if those individuals believe that God has a certain line, a certain point, beyond which He loses patience and will kill you, even if it is a "holy killing", could those individuals really be safe to save? If you were an onlooking angel, would you think they were safe to save if they had those thoughts?

I guess this question kind of hints at what is the definition of sin, what was Lucifer's sin. If someone who has in the back of their mind that there is a limit or line which they cannot cross or God will personally kill them, would there be the seeds of rebellion, the seeds of doubt, the seeds of sin, dormant though they may be, but still there? Can they be safe to save?

I don't believe that sin will exterminate itself, but I also don't believe that "God has a certain line, a certain point, beyond which He loses patience and will kill you." I don't understand how someone can believe that.

I agree. Neither sin, nor Satan, will execute or eliminate sin or sinners in the lake of fire. Law and justice require God to eliminate sin and sinners. Characterizing it the way it has been in the opening post is an unfortunate oversimplification.

You agree with what? Is adding "the lake of fire" to your statement an important qualification?

And in what way is "it" oversimplified?

What does this mean? Does this mean you don't believe that sin has consequences which result in death? (i.e., consequences of itself, as opposed to consequences which an unrelated external power, such as the power of God, applies) Or does it mean something else?

I'm asking for clarification because it should be clear that the phrase "sin will exterminate itself," taken literally, doesn't make sense.

"Law and justice," in this context, are simply expressions of God Himself. That is, justice is simply an expression of God's attribute of righteousness. One could say the same regarding the law.

You write (not just in this post, but in general) as if "law" and "justice" were something external to God, to which God was beholden. But God is sovereign. Nothing external to God can "require" Him to do something. He acts according to His attributes of character.

Another problem I see with this phrase (as you use it) is the implication that God must take action to eliminate sin, as if such action were necessary. Actually, I agree with the statement, as written, completely. God is required to take action to eliminate sin and sinners, and what requires Him to do so is His character of love. It was necessary for God to take action that sin not devastate His creation (more than it did). So God took action, and the action God took was marvelous; God sent us His only Son! God eliminates sin by making known to the universe His true character, and the character of His adversary, and of His adversary's invention (sin), and its consequences. Sinners are eliminated by choosing sin(death), as opposed to God(life).



So it is necessary that sin be eliminated, but the means of doing so is by revelation, not by the setting on fire of those who practice it -- that could never eliminate sin. Continuing on in DA 764:



What causes a doubt of God's goodness? Prematurely leaving rebels to reap the full result of their sin.

Even worse (i.e., in terms of raising doubts about God), would be His setting on fire those who chose to act contrary to His wishes (this is related to the point kland was making).

Anyway, if sin is not innocuous, but has the power to destroy those who practice it, it should be evident that it's not necessary for an artificial, external action to be taken to eliminate those who practice it. Also, given that sin is not innocuous, one wonders how such an artificial, external action would help -- that is, what purpose would it serve?

God said, "What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time."

I agree with Rosangela. The addition goes along with what she wrote. "He loses patience and will kill you" is an unfortunate way of dumbing it down. Here's how Ellen describes it:

Yes, this is the question; how can this be assured?

God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me. He knows the end from the beginning. He knows the future like history. He exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously.