I’ve been down that "circular" road with you before APL, I am personally satisfied that my understanding of what the Fruit of Life can do based on the Bible is comprehensive and accurate enough. Again I see that since you are working from a hypothesis, you are putting the cart before the oxen, by making arguments from that unproven hypothesis. Again, I see your “miracle” coding corrupting found in the absence of the Fruit of Life’s supernatural power.

Notwithstanding, here are few passing observation. Can man live perpetually without also having perfect health? In other words, if the physical body is never damaged beyond repair, including the healing of wounds, then how would a life of misery occur. The bodies immune system, when working perfectly is design to heal most, if not all wounds and damages. Surgery can even help that process.

I believe that all that Jesus provides for fallen man when redeemed will be found in the ingredients he and/or the father will be injecting in the Water of Life for the Tree.

Yes NJK - I know where you are coming from. Andrews University Seminary. Stefanovic views the Revelation 8-11 as God's response to the prays of the martyrs. (See Stefanovic, Revelation, page 277). On the final plagues, Stefanovic writes, Really? Does God have to execute judgments like this? Are the 7 last plagues brought on by God? If the book of Revelation about judgements against man? Or is the book of Revelation a revealing of sin and its effects? Reading you NJK, I think you agree with Stefanovic. So how does this jive with Matt 5:38-48? How does your view jive with DA759 which you did not address? I'm sorry if I do not see your "plain" and "convincing" view.

Uhhh.... Just to factually and substantively correct you here, APL:
(1) I did not go to the AU Seminary, or any SDA Seminary. I just took ca. 2 years of undergraduate Theology classes at Andrews.

(2) If you had read my experience on my blog, see in this post, particularly dealing with my days at Andrews you would see that I do not give default deference to even/especially AU professors.

(3) Just surfacely reading what you quoted from Stefanovic, and being familiar with his other publication on interpretations/application in Revelation, I am not impress by the quality of his exegesis in general nor here. So I do not see how he makes that application and conclusion. I rather see that the 7 Trumpets delineate the Militant Work of the Church. It runs concurrent with the 7 Seals of which this Fifth Seal is part. However I do structurally see that the Fifth Seal corresponds with the Fifth Trumpet and in Church History it was indeed the militant work of Muslims against the Catholic Church that diverted the persecutions that were being carried out against God’s faithful people. That is how Martin Luther was able to be left alone and continue with his work of reforms.

(4) EGW states this about the 7 Last Plagues:



-Sounds indeed like justified and deserving, Divine ‘wrathful’ judgements to me.

(5) You are wrongly trying to put the whole book of Revelation in one box. That part of the book of Revelation (ch. 15 & 16) deals with God’s judgements on those who have made their allegiance with the Beast Powers.

(6) I have already, partially addressed Matt 5:38-42 earlier in this discussion. Succinctly said, these are instructions against an “evil” person (vs. 39b) -not to ‘“resistively” confront them’ (Greek: #436 anti-isthemi: ‘come to “stand/be established against = (‘in the place of’)’). Vss. 43-48 are instructions to love our enemies. I understand this as not being vindictively hateful against those who hate us but do good to them by loving them, thus heaping coals on their heads. That however does not mean to be a pushover or a doormat and let people abuse us. Christ does not condemn using justice to protect us from such unwarranted attacks and treatments when possible. That however does not mean that you hate the person, or should hate them.

(7) I have not address DA 759 because knowing what I know from the SOP, I understand it to not be applicable to the actual fighting that took place in Heaven. Only to the convincing aspects of that conflict. How can you “see” my plain view if you still have not bothered to read it on my blog??? I am not responsible for this decision of yours!

Romans 1 describes God's wrath. I gave other examples from the OT previously. I see your view of God's wrath as something actively inflicted on the deserving sinner. The other view is that God's judgment is that there is nothing more that can be done, and stops His intervention (without mercy) and lets the sinner go to reap the natural consequence of his sin. The wages of sin is death, not execution by God.

There's also the statement from "It Is Finished," which NJK quoted himself:



Satan was cast down not by physical force, but by weight of evidence. That's the only this war could ever be won. From beginning to end, it's a war that's won by revealing the truth. When the revelation is seen and believed by all, then the war is won, and the Great Controversy is over. (Lest "believed by all" be misunderstood, I don't mean in a salvific sense, but in the sense described in the last chapter of "The Great Controversy," that all recognize that what God has been asserting is correct.)

GC 35-37 explains this in great detail.

It's the same war! Note the explanation in DA 761 that Satan was "cast down" when the truth regarding his character was seen, and he lost his influence. The Great Controversy is a war of ideas, a war of truth, a war which God wins by revelation. It's not a war that can be won by physical force, and, indeed, there are a number of statements which specifically tell us that compelling power is only to be found under the government of the enemy, that force is contrary to the principles of God's government.

What we have is the enemy

1.Stating that physical force is a principle of God's government, and that God uses coercion to get His way.
2.Uses physical force and coercion himself to get his way.

Whereas God

1.States that physical force is not a principle of His government, and that He does not use coercion to get His way.
2.Does not use coercion to get His way.
3.Asserts that the enemy does these things.

Yes, despite this, most Christians agree with the enemy! For example, consider the plagues in Egypt. What do most Christians think happened here? They think that God applied more and more force until he forced Pharaoh to do what He wanted Him to do. Like the mafioso who wants protection money, and breaks a window of a store-owners shop. He suggests the payment of protection money would prevent such "accidents" from occurring. If the payment is refused, the "accidents" get worse and worse, until the store-owner finally capitulates. This is how God is viewed as behaving.

Another example the SOP speaks of was the church during the period of colonization. The church would come in with gifts of healing and kind words, but if there was opposition, the sword was right there to make things happen.

We're dealing with a question of principles and character. Does "might make right"? Is coercion OK?

But this is precisely demonstrating the effects of sin! How sinners would be if God allowed them to live forever is exactly demonstrating what sin would cause.

You write here "if God had not prevented them from living forever," which implies that God's creatures have life in themselves, which they don't.





"Good sinners"? That's an oxymoron, if ever there was one.



This is again precisely what you're saying above it is not, which is to demonstrate the effect of sin.

I wanted to comment on one more thing. Quoting again from above:



From DA 764:



This speaks of being "left to reap the full result of their sin," and it is again explain that their perishing is "the inevitable result of sin," but this would not have been apparent to heavenly beings. Of course if God puts people to death, what I've just quoted here doesn't make sense, because there's no ground for misunderstanding if God puts people to death.

To make this point clear, the quote says:

1.God could have left Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, and they would have perished.
2.But had He done so, it would not have been apparent that their perishing was the inevitable result of sin.

Now if Satan and his followers perish because God puts them to death, this doesn't make any sense. We would have this:

1.God could have left Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, by putting them to death, and they would have perished.
2.But had He done so, it would not have been apparent that their perishing was the inevitable result of sin.

Of course it wouldn't be apparent that their perishing was the inevitable result of sin, because it wouldn't be true! Their perishing would be the inevitable result of God's putting them to death.

The problem I see in your explanation is that it in not way follows what is said in DA 764. You have a theory of what will happen, and what DA 764 actually says is glossed over. Your idea is a reasonable one, which many have, which is that God must put sinners to death for the good of the universe. This can't happen too soon, because if God did this too soon, it wouldn't be apparent that God was acting in justice. It would appear to be an arbitrary act of power.

The problem is that DA 764 doesn't argue that God is just in executing sinners, but that their death is not due to an arbitrary act of power on His power, but instead is the result of their own choice. Your theory, although a reasonable one, from the standpoint of ordinary logic, in no way corresponds to what she actually says.

We agree on this point.

Even if we assumed that the Tree of Life was 100% effective in its ability to cure the effects of sin, which is a tall assumption, there is still the problem of violence. Sinners wouldn't live forever, because they would kill other sinners, and this level of violence was reached in only a couple of generations. What would happen in eternity? Eventually only one would survive, like the Highlander. "There can only be one." Such is the nature of sin. Kill your enemies, until you're the only one left.