Dedication - - At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. {DA 764.2}

What did the angels not understand?

Is it clear from 1Ch10 that God personally killed Saul?

Odd statement. Would you be saying that, "why else", is to kill them? That God raises the wicked after the 1000 years to torture them?

Why are the lost, resurrected after the 1000 years?

AMEM!!!

Dedication - - At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. {DA 764.2}

What did the angels not understand?

The context answer the questions.

"By a life of rebellion, 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 764.1}

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this....

But not so when the great controversy shall be ended. Then, the plan of redemption having been completed, the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences. The precepts of His law are seen to be perfect and immutable. Then sin has made manifest its nature, Satan his character. Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {DA 764.3}


" To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Hebrews 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. {DA 107}

wherever men came before God while willfully cherishing evil, they were destroyed. At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed "with the Spirit of His mouth," and destroyed "with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thessalonians 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4}

The glory of His countenance, which to the righteous is life, will be to the wicked a consuming fire. Because of love rejected, grace despised, the sinner will be destroyed. {DA 600.2}

God's choice of who is saved and who dies is not arbitrary. Each person makes their own choice. Those who choose God as their Savior and Master obtain the gift of life. Christ's robe of righteousness is fireproof when the fires that destroy sin cleanse the earth. Those who cling to sin don't have that fireproof robe, it was their choice to reject it, it was not an arbitrary act of God that they do not have a fireproof robe of righteousness.

Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin.

Inevitable result of sin - - it is not an imposed penalty. Sin pays it wage - death. It is not execution by God. Christ died the death of a sinner and how was God the Father involved? This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.

This word "arbitrary" is interesting. SdA's preach that God is not arbitrary. This is true. But what do they mean? They are defining the word as "capricious" and "vindictive," but this is not the whole story. {DA 471} teaches that punishment for sin is not "ARBITRARILY INFLICTED" by God. In another place she talks about the destruction of Satan and sinners, citing a number of passages that we use often to describe their final obliteration, such as Mal_4:1 ..."the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven...shall burn them up..." and Eze_28:16, "...I will destroy thee, O covering cherub..." etc. This is in {DA 763.4}. But then in the next paragraph we have the most interesting statement: "This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God." Now, are we to define this word strictly and solely as "This is not a capricious and impulsive act on the part of God"? Or is there more to this?

She goes on to describe what it means that it is not an arbitrary act of power exercised by His own hand:

"The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is 'alienated from the life of God.' Christ says, 'All they that hate Me love death.' Eph_4:18; Pro_8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, 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 764.1}.

She is pointing to cause and effect in the explanation that God is the Source of Life and that it is the sinner who separates Himself from God, not the other way around. It is the sinner that has chosen death.

Jer_8:3 And death shall be chosen rather than life by all the residue of them that remain of this evil family, which remain in all the places whither I have driven them, saith the LORD of hosts.

Note: "God" has "driven them" to this choice is Bible language. He does this in the same way that He hardened Pharoah's heart: by coming repeatedly with offers of grace and mercy and continued protection.

This removes any "arbitrary act of power on the part of God" from the equation. Why? Are we playing with the definition of "arbitrary?" No, not at all. Here it is from the dictionary in front of me:

Adjective: arbitrary
"Based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice"

Note that the definition of "impulse or caprice" is secondary to "subject to individual discretion or preference." This puts an entirely different slant on what it means when we say that the punishment for sin is not an arbitrary act on the part of God. For what it means is that God, in the first place, did not sit down one day and write out what He would like for laws to rule His universe, or us, and then write into the code also the penalties that He would administer for disobeying those laws.

We should then understand that when she says the punishment of the wicked is "not an arbitrary act of power on the part of God" that it means that it is "not an act of discretionary power on the part of God." If it were a discretionary and volitional act of power on the part of God it would mean that God, who stands apart from all but Himself, having drawn a line in the sand that He COULD HAVE drawn anywhere at that time when He made the rules and punishments, now sees that the line is crossed and steps in to excercise power to punish. Or, He could ignore His line and wait a little longer. Or He could forget about lines and just punish when He saw that it was a good day to punish.

Do you see it? If the reference is entirely to Himself, then He is arbitrary. But if the reference is to the free choice of the creature to have Him or not have Him, and in His judgment He sees the heart's choice, He cannot any longer force His protecting and sustaining presence into the life. He must turn them over to the results. Those punishing results are not His power directly but His power relinquished to the chaos of nature, the caprice and discretion of demonic power, or the caprice and discretion of human power.

Note: "Satan has control of all whom God does not especially guard. He will favor and prosper some, in order to further his own designs; and he will bring trouble upon others and lead men to believe that it is God who is afflicting them" {GC 589.2}

The rest of this quote of {DA 764.1} says that the wicked "receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, 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 764.1}.

This launches into another discussion which is not the subject here, but you may for now ponder the meaning. It is not God who actively destroys them by an arbitrary measure, but rather the agency of final destruction is simply His presence, His glory.

"The glory of God is His character" {ST, September 3, 1902 par. 6}.

1) As far as 1 Chron 10:14, Saul fell on his sword and died in verse 4. Saul should have confessed his sin to God and repented, but, he did not do that. Once fear got a hold of Saul's heart he killed himself.

Now, if we consider the Lake of Fire, we see that God destroys all the wicked. I find this very clear and simple.

2) No, God does not raise the wicked just to torture them. God is vindicating His character to all creation, including the lost. Once this is accomplished, there isn't any reason for the lost to live anymore and God destroys them. God does this so that there isn't any torture involved.

So why did the Bible say God killed Saul if Saul killed himself? Does one you not find clear from the Bible, yet another you do?
If the Bible says God killed Saul, and yet you don't believe that,
Why when the Bible says Lake of Fire, you do believe God does that?
Do you see a pick and choosing going on?

Really? That's just awful! Sounds like an arrogant dictator.

According to this related side discussion about whether or not God kills, not everybody will be saved, but will instead ultimately be destroyed in the Lake of Fire.