The law -- the design template --- ???

A template can be chosen from many different options all equally possible; there is no moral imperative as to which one is chosen. A person arbitrarily selects one that seems to work best for their particular project.

So are you saying God selected/or constructed a "template" to follow in creating, and this template is his law???

The problem I have in understanding what you are saying, is that the words seem to mean something very different than how they are usually used.

Where in scripture does it say the law is a "design template"?
You have always been so strong on saying God's law is not arbitrary. Yet this "design template" idea sounds very arbitrary to me.

This is why God's law, when viewed from the premise of a template appears very arbitrary.
-- It sounds like you are saying, when God created, He made certain laws to govern the creation, -- like how the gases that constitute the air, must be a mixed in order to sustain life. What foods sustain and what foods poison the system. What elements are toxic to the body and cause cancer and other disease and even death, and what elements produce a good immune system and healthy cellular functions. Etc. Etc. --

There is really no "right" or "wrong" as to which natural laws God chose to put in place -- He had thousands of options to create a balance of laws and then create life that would do well in that framework.

Those natural laws were "arbitrary". God could have made us like the plants -- breathing carbon dioxide instead of an oxygen mixture. He could have created things in a million different ways.

And yes, God does change his natural laws.
Making the sun stand still for Joshua, or making the sun travel backwards for Hezekiah, making water stand without a dam to hold it back so the Israelites could cross the sea on dry ground, stopping the poison of a deadly snake from killing the apostle Paul -- there are many instances where God does not follow the "natural" laws He put in place to govern the natural world. The angels appear to operate on very different natural laws, then we do.

Now it's true that when we don't follow the natural laws that are set in place on our world, we will reap problems in reduced health or worse, and while it is very important to follow the laws that promote good health, yet it is not the central issue in the definition of sin (it is only one way to honor God's laws by taking care of the bodies He gave us. A healthy mind and body is much more capable of serving and living for Christ.


THE MORAL LAW and the natural law.

On the other hand == the moral law is not arbitrary, to break the moral law not only causes distress, to break it is EVIL, it is morally WRONG, bad, it is the opposite of holiness.
The opposite of God's character.

If everyone kept God's commandments -- His moral law -- think of the evil that would not happen. There is a moral law that stands high above the natural laws -- that moral law outlines the basic values that are absolutely essential for harmonious living.

They were written on tables of STONE, they are righteous, holy and good. God seeks to engrave them upon our minds (intellect) and hearts (love to live by them)

Excellent post, dedication.

I would add to this that nowhere does Ellen White refer to the punishment for the breaking of God's moral law as intrinsic nor does she use any of the synonyms for intrinsic.

Doing word studies on this is very instructive for if she had really thought the punishment for breaking God's law is intrinsic she would have said so in plain language using easily understood words like intrinsic, natural, and innate. She never does that.

Natural laws are arbitrary? You want to make that case? Really? Sin has marred all that God has made here, yet his handwriting remains. Nature still reflects the cycle of giving and ministering to others, and all are governed by the laws of God. Man alone can comprehend the requirements of the law. see {DA 20}; {ST, April 15, 1886}

But the question that is the great issue here, is what happens when we broke God's law. Is the result an imposed penalty, or an inflicted penalty. Does sin have inherent consequences, or does God administers the punishment. Is God the "enforcer", or are the consequences the inevitable results of transgression.

Never? Never? SMH. One plain example at negates this claim, Desire of Ages chapter 79.

Christ demonstrated the results of sin on the cross. How was God involved? Did God cause all the suffering and pain? No. That should be sufficient to answer the question. The sanctuary service also demonstrates the cause of death. We have no excuse to understand that sin causes death, not God.

As EGW says: God is not severe, exacting, revengeful. {ST Jan 20, 1890} He is not the executioner. {GC 36} He is not the punisher. {1SM 235} Is that speaking of intrinsic consequences of imposed? Sin is an evil thing because it destroys.

What does Ellen White actually say about God being the punisher of crimes? The database returns 5 instances of the use of the word punisher. I will show only two because the rest of the instances are duplicates as they come from compilations that use the original statement.

Yes, Gary, APL speaks lies in saying God will not punish. He will. Mrs. White speaks of God punishing sinners, and in those statements you quoted, even refers to Him as "a punisher."




According to the above:

1) God will punish (punisher).
2) God will execute justice upon the sinner (executioner).
3) The retribution is just (not arbitrary).
4) The Father's willful act (hiding His face) caused Jesus' death.


The very word "punish" implies an overt, willful action--not something "intrinsic." That sinners will be punished is amply established in Scripture.

Green,

I came across another quote from Ellen White where she contradicts almost everything apl says on the subject. She certainly leaves no doubt that God uses His own angels to deliver punishment to those who rebel against Him.

If punishment were "intrinsic" for evil then it would also be impersonal and utterly without remorse or pity. Yet God often uses punishment as a way to wake people up to their sinful condition. It is because He pities them that he punishes them to give them the opportunity to learn to repent before they cross the line that leaves them without an option to repent.

What does the Bible and Ellen White say about God executing judgment?







These statements are so clear, so unambiguous that they cannot be disputed. The final judgment is not one of natural consequences. It is a deliberate execution of justice by God on those who have chosen to rebel against His government and Him.

"execute judgment" - - Your so unambiguous believe assumes you know that this means God kills the sinner. But is that the truth? NO.

I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon them, but in this way: They place themselves beyond His protection. He warns, corrects, reproves, and points out the only path of safety; then, if those who have been the objects of His special care will follow their own course, independent of the Spirit of God, after repeated warnings, if they choose their own way, then He does not commission His angels to prevent Satan's decided attacks upon them. {LDE 242.1}

That's pretty unambiguous.

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors 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 destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. {GC 36.1}

That is so unambiguous that it cannot be disputed. And the testimony of Christ on the Cross is so unambiguous that the death of a sinner is the result of sin, not an execution by God.

There are some other translations of 1 Corinthians 15:56:

1 Corinthians 15:56 NLT For sin is the sting that results in death, and the law gives sin its power.

Weymouth New Testament: "For the wages paid by sin are death..."

Aramaic Bible in plain English: "But the product of sin is death..."

Sting of death. Here defined as "sin." Death, like a scorpion, has a sting, a fatal power imparted to it by means of sin, the cause of death (see Rom_6:23). But the redeemed will never again commit sin; therefore they can never again feel the sting of death (see Nah_1:9; Isa_11:9; Rev_21:4).
The law. See on Rom_7:7-11.


1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Nahum 1:9 What do you imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time.

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Romans 7:7-11 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet. (8) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, worked in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. (9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (10) And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be to death. (11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Ellen White talks about God's "retributive justice" in a bunch of places. The EGW Estate database returns 56 instances of the phrase "retributive justice".

What follows are a couple of them.







So what does the word "retributive" mean?



Of or pertaining to retribution. What is retribution?



Clearly there is nothing "intrinsic" in retributive justice. It is repayment, vengeance, the act of retributing.

What does it mean to retribute?



All of these words that come from a common ancestor mean to pay back, to give in return, as payment or punishment, repayment, vengeance. None of these things can even remotely be considered to be "intrinsic". They are deliberate acts of individuals. In the case of God's retributive justice, it is God doing these things. He is the only one with the right to do them, for it is against Him, and His government, that all the wrongs have ultimately been done.