What I just wrote explains how.

The cross is a perfect example of this. Satan, trying to maintain his position, exerted his influence against Christ to have him crucified. This is an example of the principle.



Consider what Satan did to Christ, and that should answer the question. Surely you can see how Satan caused death and destruction.



Here are some statements from GC 35-37:



This brings out that:

1.By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them.

and as a result

2.Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will.

By way of further explanation

3.The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control.

I take it you see that Satan caused death and destruction in the destruction of Jerusalem.



No, this isn't unclear at all. I've quoted DA 764 to here so many times I can't count. It says:



Surely you must have noticed this. How can you say the "inevitable result of sin" is unclear? Clearly it's death ("they would have perished.")



You seem to switch back and forth between topics. If you're talking about the final judgment, that's one thing. There the sinner suffers in proportion to his sinfulness. If you're talking about things like the destruction of Jerusalem, then there people suffer as the result of sin, but in this lifetime we don't have the proportionality of suffering that there will be in the final judgment. People here often suffer for things which are not of their own doing.



The suffering occurs as a result of the judgment, wherein the sinfulness of each one is examined. It is the examination itself that results in suffering. The suffering is proportional to the sinfulness of each one, because the more sin (and light that one had while choosing sin), the more suffering.



I'm not sure what you're asking here. I think what I quoted above is clear. That is:



When the Spirit of God is persistently rejected, God at times permits Satan to have his way. Satan causes death and destruction, and represents this as coming from God, which, unfortunately, is how many see death and destruction occurring.

However, the truth of God's character is revealed in and by Jesus Christ.

Satan didn’t literally kill Jesus on the cross. Jesus laid down His own life and took it up again. This means Jesus withdrew the breath of life from His human body and it died. Divinity obviously did not die. Later on, Jesus breathed back into His human body the breath of life and His human body came back to life.

By the way, I’m not asking you to explain how sin/selfishness causes sinners to experience the first death. I am asking specifically about the second death. Elsewhere you’ve explained that comprehending the contrast between their sinfulness and God’s love during final judgment is what will cause them to suffer and die.


Again, I’m talking about final judgment and the second death. Will Satan somehow cause his own suffering and death? Or, will comprehending the contrast between his sinfulness and God’s love cause him to suffer and die?


I’m asking you to explain what causes them to suffer and die according to their sinfulness? Obviously, death is the end result.


My focus is final judgment and second death. However, it begs the questions – What about God’s acts of punishment? What role do they play? Are they arbitrary? For example, when the Jesus permitted the Roman soldiers to kill thousands of men, women, and children, what role did it play? Was it arbitrary in the sense it wasn’t like smoking causes cancer?


1. Why doesn't an equivalent degree of sinfulness cause everyone to die at the same time?
2. For example, why does one white lie cause death almost immediately, whereas, millions of heinous sins does not cause death until after many days?
3. And, who or what is their source of life while they are suffering unimaginable agony and anguish?


When Jesus withdraws His protection and permits evil angels to cause death and destruction, within the limits He sets and enforces – do you think it portrays Jesus using “His enemies” to “employ” force and violence? And, does the resulting death and destruction constitute Jesus’ “act of punishment”?

True. But this insight doesn’t address the questions above. Here’s how I imagine you answering them:

1. Do you think the loyal angels were unsure of God? Yes, they were unsure. That’s why God permitted the great controversy to play out.

2. Were they unclear as to His traits and attributes of character? Yes, they were unclear. It wasn’t clear to them that Satan’s accusations were untrue.

3. Were they afraid of Him? Not really.

4. Did they somehow cease believing what they believed about God's character as they pleaded with the disgruntled angels in heaven? To some degree.

5. Were they unsure of Satan's accusations regarding the law? Most definitely.


What do you mean by “some were in the middle” regarding their decision not to side with Satan?


If Jesus settled everything regarding the great controversy on the cross, why didn’t it end at the cross? Are there unsettled issues Jesus must settle through the 144,000 for the great controversy to end?


“Them” refers to “all FMAs”. “Forced” refers to justice.


The death of Jesus was necessary to satisfy the demands of law and justice. His death established and confirmed the immutability of law and justice. “The wages of sin is death”, therefore, “death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” God was not at liberty to disregard the death penalty and save sinners. To redeem sinners He had to pay the redemption price, namely, the death of Jesus.

I like the way I answered it better. Satan raised issues regarding God's character and government. God decided the best way to deal with these was to allow the respective governments and characters to be revealed.

There would have had to have been some unsureness involved, wouldn't there? If not, why weren't they secure before the cross?



I think it would be more accurate to say it wasn't clear to them that Satan's accusations were entirely untrue.



I agree with this.



I don't agree with this one.



No, I wouldn't say "most definitely." I don't think their concern was nearly as much with the law as with God's character and government, although, of course, the law of God is involved in His government, so that would enter into it.



In between the two extremes I mentioned.



You've asked this. It's been answered. The great controversy has been settled for angels and the unfallen worlds, but not for human beings. For human beings, it still goes on.



The Great Controversy is still going on for human beings.



If Jesus had failed at the cross, God would have been forced to destroy all the beings in the universe He had created? This is your idea? And you think this is "justice"? Where do you get ideas like this? Why would you think this "justice"? Where have you learned what justice is?



What does this have to do with anything we've been talking about?

We've been talking about the security of angels as they look to the cross. Clearly this has to do with the revelation of God's character in contrast to Satan's, as the chapter "It Is Finished" explains. Satan was "cast down" (Rev. 12:10) when he was unmasked.

Regarding this statement:



This is looking at this the wrong way. It was only by means of Christ's death that God could save sinners.

Why, then, did Ellen write the following: “Yet Satan was not then destroyed. The angels did not even then understand all that was involved in the great controversy. The principles at stake were to be more fully revealed. And for the sake of man, Satan's existence must be continued. Man as well as angels must see the contrast between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness. He must choose whom he will serve. {DA 761.3}


If Jesus had failed, what would have motivated unfallen FMAs to remain loyal and obedient? What would have rendered them eternally secure? How would God have justified destroying the evil angels?


I said, “The fact Jesus' death wouldn't have been necessary had A&E succeeded in Eden proves the loyal FMAs did not require it to be rendered eternally secure.” To which you responded, “The angels are only secure in looking at the cross. This is what the quote says. I've asked you several times why you think this is the case, but you haven't responded, I don't think.”

I don’t understand how your response addresses my comment. I was talking about Jesus’ death not being necessary. You said something about sufficiency versus necessity and then detoured away from my question. So I went along with it and responded to “why you think this is the case”. That is, I think the angels were made secure by Jesus’ death because it proved the law is holy, just, and good. He established and confirmed law and justice.

I’m still interested in why you think Jesus’ death would not have been necessary had A&E succeeded in Eden, and why you think it would have rendered them eternally secure. Also, what do you think Jesus would have done to render the unfallen FMAs eternally secure?

Tom, please respond to 129063. Thank you.

No it doesn't. Why would you think this? I mean, why would you think this means any sense? Unless you're not being literal. Then it might make some sense, but I don't know what you mean in this case.



You mean literally? What did He do? Stand by Himself, like a ghost, with one end breathing out and the other end breathing in?



I would say that's involved in their death. I get this from DA 764.





I addressed this when I spoke of DA 764.



The same as I've said before. I've explained in great detail what I believe happens in the judgment.



I'm not sure what you're asking, but in this life, justice is not fair, if that's what you're getting at. That is, not all the Jews who were guilty suffered, as some lived in previous generations. In particular, many who were responsible for Jesus' death had already died.



Why do you think it wouldn't? One variable that comes to mind would be the light one has.



From DA 764 we read that one dies when one separates oneself from God. I wouldn't think of death in terms of being caused by a white lie, but from one's separating oneself from God. The more there is to examine, the longer the judgment takes.



?



Do you have some quote in mind? If so, yes, according to what the quote says.



Yes, according to the quote. That is, as GC 35-37 explains, when the Spirit of God is persistently rejected, God may permit that those who have rejected the Spirit to receive the result of their choice, to reap what they have sown, and this is their punishment.

For the reasons stated. The angels had been secured at the cross, but there was still more they could learn. The Great Controversy had not been settled for humans. So God has permitted Satan's existence to continue.



These are good questions. I'm sure if Christ had failed, that would have been terrible. There's also the fact that God swore by Himself to Abraham to consider.

I wouldn't begin to know how to answer your questions here, but I don't understand why you would conclude that God would be forced to destroy all FMA's. What would that help?



This isn't mentioned in "It Is Finished." Instead what is mentioned is that it revealed Satan's character.



This wasn't an overriding issue to angels. This is an overriding issue to some humans.



I answered this. I said I think God would have devised some other way to demonstrate His love, and reveal the principles of His government, as well as that of the enemy, but I don't know how He would have done this.



Same answer.

Tom, thank you for addressing my comments and questions. I'm glad that we can agree Jesus' death would have been unnecessary had A&E succeeded in Eden, and that God would have rendered sinless beings eternally secure in some other way. Do you think that "other way" would have worked to render A&E eternally secure had they failed? If not, why not? And, would it have worked for sinless beings for the same reasons, that is, would it have rendered them eternally secure if A&E had failed? If not, why not?

I think whatever God would have had in mind would have worked for all beings.