I exegetically see from the Bible in Isa 14:12-14 & Ezek 28:12-17 that the earth-projected aspirations of the Devil did foundationally inherently include doing away with God’s Law. Summarily said, if one aims to rule over the ‘angels of God’ (= e.g., Isa 14:13 (“stars” = Rev 12:4&9)) and this understandably cannot be achieved by force (i.e., vs. God directly), then the way to go would be to undermine what gives God this authority over these created beings/angels, and that is the obedience to God’s Law, which indeed included only worshipping God.* And of course to not make it seem that you are wanting to merely overthrow God, Satan had to undermine all of the Commandments, hence the inherently derived/implicated claim that these Laws are all not needed for the governing of God’s created beings. Indeed Satan claims apparently may have foundationally been that if this law is really based on Love, then Created Beings should not be commanded what they could or could not do as a demonstration of this Love for God, but that this would come both naturally and if they freely actually wanted to do so.

*As a illustration, if one today wants to make a drastic change in government in the United States, e.g., from a Republican philosophy to a Democrat one, they are certainly not, though the Constitution allows them to, take up arms against the United States Government/Military, but will instead try to convince the people who will vote in the next election that their proposed political views/policies/laws are better than the present ones. (=(GC/God’s) Views, Requirements, Laws).

With that exegetical Biblical basis, I see that the direct revelations that EGW had on this episode are indeed True and also agree with her derived commentary.



As it is key to understand what the Bible teaches on a subject, it is incontrovertible to include in this determination all of the texts of the Bible that speak on it. That is my approach and as I see that the notion of freewill is clearly stated in the Bible and also, as pointed out earlier, the many texts that seem to indicate no freewill either are not actually saying so when exegetically examined (i.e., including syntax) and/or are in the context of a believer have literally freely and desiringly turned over the reins of their life to God, to do as He sees and knows is best, then I do not see that the Bible is teaching that we do not have freewill. There are indeed to many examples and also Theological, Doctrinal and Prophetic statements to the contrary. All of those have to be duly taken into full and proper consideration to arrive at the accurate understanding on this Teaching.

(1) I added the term “eternal” because all those who die the First Death will be resurrected to die the Second Death which is the one that is “eternal” as understood by the Biblical teaching on the result of the Hell Fire Judgement.

(2) the notion of “eternal” is, in my Biblical understanding, inherently involved in death unless God intervenes to overturn this naturally resulting state. That is why the Bible does not need to explicitly say “eternal death” however, as seen in the John 3:16-21 passage that I had referred to, as well as passages such as John 5:24; Rom 6:23, it is the direct opposite of ‘living eternally’. And if one can live eternally while dead (??!), then they are not actually “dead”. Case in point, those who will live many days in the fires of Hell and then not die, will indeed be alive and not dead. It is only when they have fully paid the penalty for their sins that they will die that Second (and by implication, “Eternal”) Death.



I gather/presume by your denunciation here that you do not have the common understanding of death as SDA’s/the SOP teach. Therefore do state what you see the Bible’s teaching on death is (if different).

I'm not saying that. But what I am saying is merely parroting the Bible.


Man was made in God's likeness. That likeness involves quite a few characteristics, but choosing is certainly one of them.

Even in our fallen state, we are called upon to make choices, to make decisions.


Does that mean we are capable of governing ourselves? No. The Bible is very clear about our inability to be good governors, and our need to submit to God.

However, the fact that we are called upon to submit to God should tell us that it remains with us to choose Him over any other gods that are vying for our loyalty. If we had no choice in the matter, there would be no need to submit.

"Submission" without the free will to choose whether or not to submit is not true submission, but just a sneaky form of slavery.

Elle, if you look at the notes of the NET Bible about John 11:26, you will see that the Greek says, literally, "will never die forever." In fact, our best Portuguese translation says exactly that.

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament says about this passage:

Perhaps a better definition would be that God created us with the ability to choose who will govern us. In fact, after sin, this ability is preserved only through the action of the Holy Spirit in our lives. If it weren't for this, we would always and forever choose Satan.

Why would God choose to guide things in such a goofy way? Evil, even.

I can understand the existence of the horrific things that happen on this planet if one allows for the existence of evil beings with free will, but how could it be possible to explain these things if *God* is guiding everything? What sort of God would "guide" things like rape, child abuse, torture, divorce, cancer, etc.?

The "therefore" isn't necessary, as far as articulating a definition is concerned, so the definition comes down to:



So this involves two things:

1.Having the ability to generate one's own wise thoughts.
2.Having the ability to derive proper choices from those self-generated wise thoughts.

A more straight-forward definition would be:

1.Having the ability to derive proper choices from one's self-generated thoughts.

I think this isn't a bad definition. I don't see why the requirement for one to be able to self-generate wise thoughts would be necessary; just thoughts which enable one to make proper decisions should be sufficient.

So where is the problem? Is it that we cannot self-generate thoughts? Or is it that we cannot make proper decisions from these thoughts which are self-generated?

Where in Scripture is either of these things suggested? (i.e., that we cannot self-generate thoughts, or that we cannot make proper decisions). Indeed, doesn't the mere fact that there is a judgment pre-suppose that we have the ability to make proper decisions?

I can see the argument being made that we cannot make proper decisions apart without divine assistance, but not that we cannot, even with divine assistance, make proper decisions. If this weren't the case (that even with divine assistance, we cannot make proper decisions), it would seem to again beg the question as to what we would be judged upon.

When Zechariah was murdered, was it God who was guiding them?

Taking a few steps back, why would God command anything if He is the one doing everything anyway? If that was the case, He would have said to Adam, "You should not eat that fruit, but you have no choice in the matter. One of these days, I will make you eat it, then you will die because of it."

This view is not of a God who wants communion, but one who wants toys.

That is a great exegetical point/dig Rosangela. I have never thought to ever exegetically verify that text that many use to support and eternal soul in the NT era, nor thus did it even come t mind here, as it just did not occur to me that such a clear indication as to what extent of death Jesus was referring to here would be so grossly mistranslated, indeed completely non-translated. Indeed none of the major English version (NASB, NKJV, KJV, RSV/NRSV, NIV) have including this key “forever” (or literally “into the age”) in their translation. Simply unbelievable!!! If that’s not doctrinal bias....