1. Tom, what I mean is mental suffering for sin - to feel anguish for sin. They love sin and exalt sin. Hardened sinners have their consciences seared; they are incapable of understanding the sinfulness of sin. But when the Judge casts upon them “one penetrating, convicting glance, ... every deed, every transaction of life, will be vividly impressed upon the memory of the wrongdoer.” Then “the consequences to result to himself will draw from each an acknowledgment of his sin. It will be forced from the soul by an awful sense of condemnation and a fearful looking for of judgment” (PP 498).

Tom: I don't know what point you're wishing to make here. Would you agree that those who have most know the truth have a greater capacity to suffer for sin? This would seem to go along the lines of what you're presenting.

2- God’s goodness won’t be revealed to Satan.

Tom: Yes it will.

quote:

---

Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.(DA 764)

---

That's what this quote is saying. God's glory is His goodness, His love. This is also pointed out in the DA 108 quote which says the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked.

It's true that Satan knew God's goodness, and for this reason Satan cannot be saved by God's revealing it, because he hardened his heart in the full knowledge of it. He came to the point where he was so hardened by sin that God's presence became for him a consuming fire, and he is no longer able to abide in God's presence. However, at the judgment, everyone will come face to face with God, and to come face to face with God is to behold His goodness. There's no way around that. God can be no other than He is, which is good.

R:
He already knows it. It has been revealed to him as to no one else. He denies that unselfishness exists for a simple reason: how could he admit that God is unselfish and still continue to attack God? This admission would defeat his very purpose. He chose to deny truth but he knows very well what truth is. How can he succeed, though, if he admits that the truth is with God and that he is lying?

Tom:

quote:

---

Unselfishness, the principle of God's kingdom, is the principle that Satan hates; its very existence he denies. From the beginning of the great controversy he has endeavored to prove God's principles of action to be selfish, and he deals in the same way with all who serve God. To disprove Satan's claim is the work of Christ and of all who bear His name.(Ed 154)

---

It's a law of the mind that when one affirms or denies something, one comes to believe the thing that one is affirming or denying. Satan has been denying God is unselfish for thousands of years. He has come to believe the things he espouses. To suppose otherwise is to suppose he is acting contrary to human nature (ha ha).

R:
3- Of course this act of God does not result from personal inclination.

Tom: Who's inclination would it result from if not God's?

R:
There has been a judgment before this and the wicked are condemned by unanimity. If the whole universe is in agreement with God about the fate of the wicked, how can this be called an act resulting from personal inclination?

Tom: If the wicked are destroyed by an act of God which is disconnected from the essence of sin itself, then the destruction of the wicked is not due to a law or principle of sin itself, but due to an act of God, on the basis of His individual discretion. That others agree with His act does not change this fact.

R:
Besides you know that nobody here is saying that God tortures and kills people despotically or by whim.

Tom: No, not desptocially or by whim. I agree nobody is saying that. They are saying, by implication, that He is torturing and killing the wicked arbitrarily, however, using definition 2 from your list, by denying that sin causes death.

R: God is forced to remove the life of incorrigible rebels because sin is an evil ruinous to the whole universe and God must put an end to it. It would be cruel to keep sinners alive - cruel to the sinners themselves and cruel to the universe.

Tom: Yes, it would be cruel for God to keep sinners alive. So He doesn't. He allows them to suffer the inevitable results of sin. His glory, which is His goodness, and that which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked.

R:
4- God’s favor and God’s love are two different things. God’s favor means God’s approval.

Tom: Ok. This I think describes the problem we're having in communication. When I have been speaking of God's favor in terms of the human race, I have been using the term as in the sense of doing something for someone which they do not deserve, and treating them not according to as they deserve, but according to one's own disposition towards them. So God does not approve of that which man does, but He still extends them favor. I'm using it like "grace."

R:
To not enjoy the approval of God means to be under His condemnation. And God cannot approve of, but must condemn, those who are in sin.

Tom: God cannot approve of, and must condemn, sin. Those who insist on clinging to sin are condemned, not because of God, but because of the sin. Christ came to justify, not to condemn, and He doesn't condemn. Christ made that point several times. People are condemned by their own unbelief. They refuse to believe the truth, and the truth will end up justifying God and all those who believe it, but condemning those who don't.

R:
P.S. Yes, the Portuguese word for unselfishness is abnegacao [abnegation - used in English with a different meaning], which would mean to deny self (for the good of others); also desprendimento.

Tom: I didn't think of "desprendimento." I don't like any of the words or phrases as well as "unselfishness," which is directly to the point and easy to understand. But that happens often going from one language to another. No nice word in English for "carinho."

Thanks for continuing the dialog, Rosangela. I've been learning a lot in our discussion.

Tom: This was a very well-written post. I think Covenant Theology is a way of looking at things, but not the only way. The clearest way I have seen is in terms of the Great Controversy. For example, the following statement from the Spirit of Prophesy:

quote:

---

Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God. (RH 1/20/90)

---

The main problem man has is in not understanding God's character. Believing God's lies has led to man seperating himself from God. In order to be brought back to God, the character of God must be revealed to man. It was for this purpose that Christ came. This was "the whole purpose" of His mission. Men are set right when they believe the truth about God. I think this is the clearest way of seeing things, and was Paul's perspective, as well as John's, and Peter's.

R:
Are you in agreement or not with Covenant Theology?
Covenant Theology grows out of the soil of the Reformed doctrine of federal representation and is based on the biblical teaching about the two Adams whose responses under covenant probation are imputed to those they represent.

God entered into a covenant with Adam, the basis of which was His law. In this covenant:
_ the condition was perfect obedience
_ the promise was eternal life
_ the penalty for transgression was exposure to the wrath of God (which inevitably meant death).

Although Adam enjoyed God’s favor because he had no sin, yet he was to obey, if he would enjoy eternal life. Thus he must have:
1) not only a negative righteousness - he was not guilty of anything; but also
2) a positive righteousness - he must obey that he might inherit eternal life

When he sinned,
1) he became guilty of transgression, forfeited God’s favor and became subject to the penalty
2) he failed to obey positively, failed to overcome de devil, and thus forfeited eternal life.

Therefore, in the covenant of grace, the representative of humanity, the second Adam, must
1) by satisfying the penalty, clear the slate and reinstate us in God’s favor _ Adam’s original condition. (This is called Christ’s passive obedience.)
2) accomplish the probationary assignment of overcoming the devil and presenting a perfect obedience, earning for us eternal life _ God’s promised reward. (This is called Christ’s active obedience.)

Thus, for man to be justified, he must have:
1) the not imputation of sin (passive righteousness), placing him in a condition as if he had never transgressed, that the penalty may be remitted
2) a reckoning of righteousness (active righteousness), granting him eternal life

Ellen White clearly agrees with Covenant Theology. Just some quotes that show this (there are many more):

“We have reason for ceaseless gratitude to God that Christ, by His perfect obedience, has won back the heaven that Adam lost through disobedience. Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences; but Jesus bore the guilt of Adam, and all the children of Adam that will flee to Christ, the second Adam, may escape the penalty of transgression. Jesus regained heaven for man by bearing the test that Adam failed to endure; for He obeyed the law perfectly, and all who have a right conception of the plan of redemption will see that they cannot be saved while in transgression of God's holy precepts.” {FW 88}

“As Adam lost the gift of life and immortality by his disobedience, so all born of Adam forfeit this gift. That one transgression opened the flood-gates of woe upon our world. Adam had no power in himself to redeem the past, or to win back the gifts bestowed by Christ. But by his incarnation, Christ was made fully competent to place man where he would no longer be an outcast, excluded from the tree of life. Christ himself bore the penalty of sin, that he might bring life and immortality to light.” (ST June 17, 1897)

"As representative of the fallen race, Christ passed over the same ground on which Adam stumbled and fell. By a life of perfect obedience to God's law, Christ redeemed man from the penalty of Adam's disgraceful fall. ... Bearing the penalty of the law, He gives the sinner another chance, a second trial. He opens a way whereby the sinner can be reinstated in God's favor. Christ bears the penalty of man's past transgressions, and by imparting to man His righteousness, makes it possible for man to keep God's holy law" (MS 126, 1901).

Tom: This is one way of looking at things. It's heavily legal, which is IMO a means to an end. That is, from this perspective we may learn the wonderful truth that God's favor cannot be earned, but that we must depend totally upon His graciousness in order to be saved. That's a very important point.

Something the 1888 message made clear, which the Reformed preachers had not seen, is that the legal aspect of Christ's work included all mankind, not just those who believed. So Christ became the second Adam for the entire human race, not just for those who believe, at least from the perspective that they owe their physical lives to Christ. I don't know of anyone who brought out this point before A. T. Jones, W. W. Presscott, E. J. Waggoner and Ellen G. White.

R:
P.S. Adam should have died immediately, but this didn’t happen because just after his sin God explained to him the plan of salvation (Gen. 3:15) and he accepted it.

Tom: It wouldn't have mattered if he had accepted it or not, Adam still would not have died immediately, just as those who do not accept it now do not die immediately.

R: He was justified just after he had sinned. His second chance involved an immediate justification.

Tom: Only from a legal standpoint. He was not justified by faith before he was given a second chance. This is obvious by what transpired in Eden. Adam ran away from God and hid. He should not have been able to do this as he should have been dead. The only reason he wasn't dead was because Christ was already acting as his Savior. "As soon as their was sin, there was a Savior."

So the order of events was:
1) Adam sinned.
2) God went looking for Adam.
3) Adam felt condemned because of his sin, and fled from God.
4) God explained the Plan of Salvation, which was already in force.

So the Plan of Salvation was in force starting from 1). Adam wasn't justified by faith until after 4).

R: However, this doesn’t happen with his posterity, for men must first have a knowledge of the plan of salvation before accepting it; thus their second chance involves a lifetime of opportunity. But they are reinstated to God’s favor only when they are justified by faith. At least this is how I see it.

Tom: All men have God's favor (i.e. grace) at all times. All are accepted in Christ. Through Christ, all receive physical life. If one refuses Christ for a lifetime, one will be eternally lost, because a lifetime of hardening one's heart will result in a character to which God's presence will be a consuming fire. The glory of God will destroy those who refuse to receive Christ, not because God is angry or vengeful, but because one who's character is solidified with the principles of selfishness cannot abide in the glory of He who is self-sacrificing love.

Joking?

Of course not: only a sloppy Bible reader would say that there are not tons of statements which are understood as saying God punishes, destroys or liquidates.

Here are a few listings:


Bible

Genesis 6:5-7, 17; 19:24,25; Exodus 4:21; 7;3,13; 32:27; Joshua 10:11; Matthew 22:7

The Spirit of Prophecy

PP 491.2; SDA Bible Commentary 1:117; COL pp 307 to 309

There are many more, naturally.

These are many folk today who read these texts, interpret them according to long-accustomed methods, and are quite satisfied to believe that God does behave as an executioner to those who refuse to obey His laws.

But in doing so they have to ignore several things.
Sadly, I have yet to see anyone address these things here.

Firstly, there are quite a number of statements which say the opposite from what these statements are interpreted to mean.

Secondly, there are the great Ten Commandments principles which are embodied in the constitution of God's government. These I have attempted to address in the "Perfection of the Law" thread.

Thirdly, there are the terrible implications of holding such beliefs about God.

These will be considered in turn as we proceed, but firstly let a list be made of what some would call counter-statements. In reality they are not and cannot be counter-statements for there is no such thing as a contradiction in God's Word.

Here are some examples of such statements:

(Those who wish to skip all heavenly admonitions or proofs that might disturb their settled conclusions can scroll to the bottom and look for the bold *)

"The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works." "Thy testimonies [commandments or laws] that Thou hast commanded are righteous and very faithful." Psalms 145:17; 119:138.

The Lord is righteous and the law is righteous. Therefore God is what the law is. It is the "transcript of His own character," Christ's Object Lessons, 315, and that law declares "Thou shalt not kill." Exodus 20:13. Therefore, if it is not in the law to kill, it is not in the character of God to kill.

So, "God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself." Christ's Object Lessons, 84.

"God destroys no one." Testimonies 5:120.

"God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown, which yields its unfailing harvest, The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the, sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan." The Great Controversy, 36.

"Satan is the destroyer. God cannot bless those who refuse to be faithful stewards. All He can do is to permit Satan to accomplish his destroying work. We see calamities of every kind and in every degree corning upon the earth, and why? The Lord's restraining power is not exercised. The world has disregarded the word of God. They live as though there were no God. Like the inhabitants of the Noachic world, they refuse to have any thought of God. Wickedness prevails to an alarming extent, and the earth is ripe for the harvest." Testimonies 6:388, 389.

"This earth has almost reached the place where God will permit the destroyer to work his will upon it." Testimonies 7:141.

"God keeps a reckoning with the nations. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without His notice. Those who work evil toward their fellow men, saying, How doth God know? will one day be called upon to meet long- deferred vengeance. In this age a more than common contempt is shown to God. Men have reached a point in insolence and disobedience which shows that their cup of iniquity is almost full. Many have well-nigh passed the boundary of mercy. Soon God will show that He is indeed the living God. He will say to the angels, 'No longer combat Satan in his efforts to destroy. Let him work out his malignity upon the children of disobedience; for the cup of their iniquity is full. They have advanced from one degree of wickedness to another, adding daily to their lawlessness. I will no longer interfere to prevent the destroyer from doing his work." The Review and Herald, September 17, 1901.

When Jesus was asked to destroy the Samaritans who had rejected Him, He replied to His disciples, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." Luke 9:55, 56.

"There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas." The Desire of Ages, 487.

"Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power." ibid., 759.

"The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority." ibid., 22.

We know that God does nothing that is contrary to the principles of His government. Therefore, He does not use force.

"Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer." The Ministry of Healing, 113.

*

Here is a compilation of statements, emphatic and clear, asserting that God is not an executioner, does not punish, and destroys no one. How unsettlingly confusing!!!

When these and the first set are viewed side by side, there appears no possibility of their being reconcilable.

These apparent contradictions present the Bible student with a problem. For unbelievers and skeptics, it is "solved" by simply discarding faith in the Word of God, charging it and its Author with duplicity and inconsistency. I get this all the time from Muslim "thinkers" and others here in Asia.

Others simply ignore the words which they are unable to understand or do not really desire to accept, while they carefully collect the opposite set, building their faith accordingly.

This was the course adopted by the rabbis and Jews prior to and at the first advent.

In the Old Testament there were many prophetic statements describing both the first and second coming of Christ. One set naturally spoke of His coming in obscurity, shame, ignominy, rejection and to final crucifixion. The other set described a coming in indescribable power, glory and triumph in which all His enemies would be totally annihilated.

To the Jewish mind, especially as it lost the Spirit's illumination, it was impossible to reconcile these seeming contradictions. Their solution was to ignore every statement which spoke of humility and obscurity and to dwell heavily on those which spoke of power and glory.

Once they had embarked on that wrong principle of interpretation, then, the more they studied their Bibles, the more conditioned they became to reject the Saviour when He appeared.

He came exactly as the Scriptures said He would, but not as they had read the prophecies. Therefore, because He did not fulfil the set of prophecies they had gathered, they rejected Him and thus lost their eternal lives.

Just a noitce. The correct translation of the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is "thou shalt not murder".

Tom,

Sorry for the delay; I didn't have enough time to reply yesterday.

1- The point I’m trying to make about the intensity and duration of the punishment of the wicked is that it is determined by God’s estimation of sin, not by sin itself. If God wasn’t antipathetic to sin, sinners wouldn’t suffer, for sin is not grievous in their sight. They will suffer because they will experience the sense of God’s wrath against sin, of His hatred for sin.

“God's wrath against sin and the punishment for sin must be exhausted. Manuscript 44, 1898, p. 3. {5MR 423.1}

2- The suffering of the wicked is mainly caused not by coming face to face with God’s goodness, but by coming face to face with God’s wrath against sin. That’s why I don’t view God at the last day treating the righteous and the wicked exactly in the same manner. The righteous will never personally experience the wrath of God, while the wicked will know it face to face.

3- Nothing God does results from inclination. God shows mercy because He is mercy. God shown love because He is love. God shows justice because He is justice. God shows wrath because He is holiness, truth, unselfishness, goodness - the opposite of sin. He will show His wrath against sin and this will kill the wicked; this is not a result of personal inclination. You think that God’s exterminating the wicked with fire is arbitrary, while exterminating them by His wrath is not, however, the wicked would suffer much less if they were exterminated just with fire.

4- Ellen White is clear that Adam lost God’s favor. This couldn’t refer to God’s grace, since there was no grace before sin. Grace is unmerited favor, and this is how God’s favor is called now, after sin. However, like pardon, salvation, and righteousness, grace is also provisional - extended to all, but effective to those who accept it.

“The grace of Christ and his righteousness are offered to men as a free gift.” {RH, December 24, 1908}

I still see no “corporate justification” involved here.

When Adam sinned, the wrath of God came upon him because of his sin; thus, he would have died immediately, for the wrath of God means death to the sinner. But Christ proposed to receive the wrath of God upon Himself, so that man could escape the death sentence by accepting Christ as His Redeemer. Thus, God’s wrath was restrained, the death sentence was delayed, so that man could have another trial, a lifetime of probation:

“The Son of God, undertaking to become the Redeemer of the race, placed Adam in a new relation to his Creator. He was still fallen; but a door of hope was opened to him. The wrath of God still hung over Adam, but the execution of the sentence of death was delayed, and the indignation of God was restrained, because Christ had entered upon the work of becoming man's Redeemer. Christ was to take the wrath of God, which in justice should fall upon man. He became a refuge for man, and, although man was indeed a criminal, deserving the wrath of God, yet he could, by faith in Christ, run into the refuge provided and be safe... God forbears, for a time, the full execution of the sentence of death pronounced upon man.” {Con 19, 20}

P. S. I’ve finally remembered the exact Portuguese word for unselfishness - it is “altruismo” [in English you have altruism]. As you said, not so good and simple as the English word.

Roseangela: said:

"Just a noitce. The correct translation of the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is "thou shalt not murder".

Hmmmm... I guess Sister White musta not understood that "finer" distinction:

"When Jesus turned upon the Pharisees with the question whether it was lawful on the Sabbath day to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill, He confronted them with their own wicked purposes. They were hunting His life with bitter hatred, while He was saving life and bringing happiness to multitudes. Was it better to slay upon the Sabbath, as they were planning to do, than to heal the afflicted, as He had done? Was it more righteous to have murder in the heart upon God's holy day than love to all men, which finds expression in deeds of mercy? {DA 287.1}

"Across the sea from the place where they were assembled was the country of Bashan, a lonely region, whose wild gorges and wooded hills had long been a favorite lurking ground for criminals of all descriptions. Reports of robbery and murder committed there were fresh in the minds of the people, and many were zealous in denouncing these evildoers. At the same time they were themselves passionate and contentious; they cherished the most bitter hatred of their Roman oppressors and felt themselves at liberty to hate and despise all other peoples, and even their own countrymen who did not in all things conform to their ideas. In all this they were violating the law which declares, "Thou shalt not kill." {MB 56.1}
The spirit of hatred and revenge originated with Satan, and it led him to put to death the Son of God. Whoever cherishes malice or unkindness is cherishing the same spirit, and its fruit will be unto death. In the revengeful thought the evil deed lies enfolded, as the plant in the seed. "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:15. {MB 56.2}

Ikan,

These quotations just confirm what I said, that "to kill" in this commandment means "to murder". That this is the case is clear from the fact that the israelites were commanded by God to kill - to inflict the death penalty, to make war against the canaanite nations, etc. and by so doing were not transgressing the commandment.

"the israelites were commanded by God to kill".... is a good point brought up by Rosangela.

The Commandment says not to "kill" or "murder", however one wishes to translate it (my understanding is that the Hebrew word is best rendered "kill" just taking the word into account, and not the context of being a part of the Ten Commandments). God does not act contrary to His law -- everybody agrees to that. So however we interpret God's character to be, we will interpret the commandment. So we cannot appeal to the commandment to interpret God's character, since we read the commandment according to our interpretation of God's character.

However, we can appeal to Jesus Christ's life as an example. If we want to understand the Ten Commandments, we have but to look at the life of Christ. They show what observance of the Ten Commandments looks like. We can also look to Jesus Christ to understand God's character, since the whole purpose of His mission was to reveal God's character, in order to set us right with Him.

So if we wish to understand how God will treat the wicked in the end, we have but to look at how Jesus Christ treated the wicked while in the flesh. All that we need to know about God, or can know about Him, was revealed to us by Jesus Christ.