Re: Tom's questions.

1. The wicked will suffer a similar soul anguish. How they eventually die in the lake of fire is totally different. Jesus laid down his own life. The wicked will not.

2. I believe this insight means that Jesus suffered the soul anguish we would have suffered if we hadn’t allowed Him to save us. Part of dying involves soul anguish. That’s the part Jesus suffered on our behalf. And then some. See below.

3. I believe this insight means that the angels learned the truth about the soul anguish associated with sinning when they beheld Jesus suffering upon the cross.

4. Yes. Jesus suffered the soul anguish associated with sinning.

TE: Regarding Azazel, in Early Writings we read: Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused.

MM: I believe this insight means Satan will suffer 1) for his own sins, which include tempting humans to sin, 2) for the sins that the saved committed, and 3) for causing others to be lost. He will not suffer soul anguish for the sins that the lost committed.

TE: Our website says: The scapegoat was simply an indication that the devil would eventually be faced with the consequences of his action, when sin and sinners will be no more.

MM: I believe this statement is only partially correct. It is missing points 2 and 3 listed above.

TE: For God to have Satan suffer beyond the consequences of his own actions would be both.

MM: I disagree. Satan will suffer the soul anguish for the sins of the saved as if he committed them himself. “Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also [the weight and punishment] of the sins of the redeemed host ….� Again, there is nothing salvific about it.

TE: … that is, Christ experienced what we would experience apart from our partaking of the atonement.

MM: I disagree. The plan of salvation is what makes it possible for us to accumulate a lifetime of sinning. The human race would not have survived the instant death of our first parents. Since sinners suffer in proportion to their sinfulness, Adam and Eve would have died without much soul anguish.

The Bible says Jesus became sin (singular) for us. He did not become our sins (plural). This distinction is important. To me it means Jesus was treated as if He were sin itself. God hates sin, but loves sinners. His suffering would have been the same regardless of how much sin humans committed.

Thus, what Jesus did for us far exceeds merely being treated as if He committed our sins. To say He suffered what we should suffer doesn’t do it justice. To compare the death of Jesus with the death of the wicked is impossible.

2. I believe this insight means that Jesus suffered the soul anguish we would have suffered if we hadn’t allowed Him to save us. Part of dying involves soul anguish. That’s the part Jesus suffered on our behalf. And then some. See below.

Then Jesus didn't really suffer the death that was ours. Just a portion of it.

3. I believe this insight means that the angels learned the truth about the soul anguish associated with sinning when they beheld Jesus suffering upon the cross.

The problem here is if the death of the wicked involves more than soul anguish. If it does, then this answer is inadequate. The SOP tells us that before Christ's death, God could not allow Satan and his followers to suffer the inevitable results of sin, their destruction, because they would have been confused, thinking that it was something God was doing to them. So in your view, Christ's death on the cross wouldn't really solve the angel's confusion, would it?

4. Yes. Jesus suffered the soul anguish associated with sinning.

My question wasn't a "yes" or "no" question. For your convenience, I'll reask the question.

4.Those who refuse to partake of the atonement will bear in their own body the guilt and punishment of sin. This is exactly what Christ did. The punishment for sin does not change. It's not one thing for Christ and another for someone else. If that were the case, it wouldn't be true that Christ suffered the punishment of sin.

Do you agree with this? (especially the bold part)


TE: Regarding Azazel, in Early Writings we read: Satan and his angels suffered long. Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him; and he must also suffer for the ruin of souls which he had caused.

MM: I believe this insight means Satan will suffer 1) for his own sins, which include tempting humans to sin, 2) for the sins that the saved committed, and 3) for causing others to be lost. He will not suffer soul anguish for the sins that the lost committed.

How could Satan suffer for something he didn't do? How would that be just?

TE: Our website says: The scapegoat was simply an indication that the devil would eventually be faced with the consequences of his action, when sin and sinners will be no more.

MM: I believe this statement is only partially correct. It is missing points 2 and 3 listed above.

This idea isn't making any sense to me. The idea seems to be that God literally transfers sin from the saved to Satan, as if sin were something like a toaster or a comb; that God transfers the toasters of the saved to Satan, but not the wicked, so that Satan will suffer due to his own toaster and the toasters of the righteous, but not the toasters of the wicked.

But sin is not like a toaster. Sin is something that happens in the mind. God will reveal the truth to Satan of the ramifications of what he has done. As the author of sin, Satan bears responsibility for all sin, whether of the righteous or the wicked. The language of the Spirit of Prophecy, as well as the sanctuary ceremonies, is designed to draw our minds to the responsibility Satan bears as the author of sin. It's not pointing to an arbitrary action on the part of God.

TE: For God to have Satan suffer beyond the consequences of his own actions would be both.

MM: I disagree.

Why? Why would it not be unjust for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do? Why would it not be arbitrary for God to make Satan suffer for something he wasn't responsible for? I'm guessing you might ask in return how is it just and non-arbitrary for Jesus Christ to have suffered for what He didn't do. The answer to this is that Jesus voluntarily and graciously accepted the responsibility for our sin. "Let the punishment fall on Me."(ST 6/27/00)

TE: … that is, Christ experienced what we would experience apart from our partaking of the atonement.

MM: I disagree.

I don't see how you can disagree with this. EGW wrote:

(Christ) bore the guilt of transgression, and the hiding of His Father's face, until His heart was broken and His life crushed out. All this sacrifice was made that sinners might be redeemed. In no other way could man be freed from the penalty of sin. And every soul that refuses to become a partaker of the atonement provided at such a cost must bear in his own person the guilt and punishment of transgression. (GC 539)

I'm just restating what she said. How is what I wrote any different than what she wrote?

The Bible says Jesus became sin (singular) for us. He did not become our sins (plural). This distinction is important. To me it means Jesus was treated as if He were sin itself. God hates sin, but loves sinners.

Does this mean that God hated Jesus?

His suffering would have been the same regardless of how much sin humans committed.

This is an interesting thought. I thought about this for awhile, and I don't think this could be true. If we study what EGW wrote we see that the suffering of Christ is not something arbitrary which God foisted upon Christ, but rather was related to guilt (see, for example, the above referenced GC 539 quote, first sentence). Therefore the greater the guilt, the greater the punishment. The human race collectively has more guilt than Adam and Eve had.

I haven't thought a lot about this, however, and do find your idea interesting. I'll think about it some more, but this is my gut reaction.

Thus, what Jesus did for us far exceeds merely being treated as if He committed our sins.

I don't think this is true. Isaiah says He was numbered among the transgressors. He restored that which He did not steal (Ps. 69). I think this corresponds to the punishment He bore. I would say the results of what Christ did involve more than simply recognizing that He was treated as we deserve, but not His punishment. That is, His punishment consists precisely in that the suffered for sin as we would have had He not suffered in our place. I'm curious as to what more you think He did, in termps of being punished.

Actually, your statement, as worded, as undeniably true. Christ did to for us far more than merely being treated as if He committed our sins. Christ's whole mission was to reveal God's character to us. *That's* the far greater thing that Christ did. But from the context, I think you had something else in mind.

To say He suffered what we should suffer doesn’t do it justice. To compare the death of Jesus with the death of the wicked is impossible.

And yet the Spirit of Prophecy did it repeatedly! "He suffered the death that was ours" is an example of the "impossible." So is the GC 539 quote. That's obviously comparing Christ's death to the death of the wicked. Christ bore the guilt of transgression by dying; He bore the penalty of sin. If we don't partake of the atonement, we will bear the guilt and punishment of transgression. This is clearly a comparison.

TE: Then Jesus didn't really suffer the death that was ours. Just a portion of it.

MM: Jesus suffered the part of death on our behalf that was appointed Him. And Satan will suffer the part of our death that is appointed him.

TE: So in your view, Christ's death on the cross wouldn't really solve the angel's confusion, would it?

MM: Obviously it did.

TE: It's not one thing for Christ and another for someone else. If that were the case, it wouldn't be true that Christ suffered the punishment of sin.

MM: Of course He did. Jesus drained the dregs of the cup of trembling. He tasted death for all of us. He suffered the ultimate agony because He didn’t die prematurely. He was triumphant over sin and death. He conquered them. They didn’t kill Him or cause His death. He laid down His own life after He had gained the victory, after He defeated them.

DA 758
Christ did not yield up His life till He had accomplished the work which He came to do, and with His parting breath He exclaimed, "It is finished." John 19:30. The battle had been won. His right hand and His holy arm had gotten Him the victory. As a Conqueror He planted His banner on the eternal heights. Was there not joy among the angels? All heaven triumphed in the Saviour's victory. Satan was defeated, and knew that his kingdom was lost. {DA 758.1}

TE: How could Satan suffer for something he didn't do? How would that be just?

MM: Jesus defeated sin and death on the cross but He hasn’t eliminated them yet. He will accomplish this by placing them upon Satan in the lake of fire.

TE: But sin is not like a toaster.

MM: If sin is unlike a toaster then why does it still exist in the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus placed it after earning the right to own it on the cross? I’m resisting the temptation to refer to burnt toast.

TE: Does this mean that God hated Jesus?

MM: God hates sin, and Jesus became sin for us. It is a mystery, right?

TE: *That's* the far greater thing that Christ did. But from the context, I think you had something else in mind.

MM: I agree with your insight, too. I believe in addition to suffering for every sin ever committed since the fall of man He also suffered for all the sins He as God was capable of committing. Simply suffering for the sins of man would not have been enough to demonstrate the hideousness of sin to the point no one would ever want to commit a sin again. The suffering Jesus experienced far exceeded what man or angel is capable of experiencing. And this display was necessary to uproot the seed of rebellion forever. Otherwise the mere punishment and death of a man or angel would have sufficed.

TE: Then Jesus didn't really suffer the death that was ours. Just a portion of it.

MM: Jesus suffered the part of death on our behalf that was appointed Him. And Satan will suffer the part of our death that is appointed him.

If you compare the things she wrote with one another, it should be clear that it was not her intention to make Satan a co-bearer of our sin in conjunction with Jesus. Jesus didn't share the burden of bearing the penalty of our sin and transgression with Satan. Nowhere does Scripture even remotely suggest this. Everywhere the bearing of sin is mentioned, it is Jesus Christ who bears our sin. It's not "Behold the Lamb of God and the serpent who bear the sin of the world" but "Behold the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world!"

TE: So in your view, Christ's death on the cross wouldn't really solve the angel's confusion, would it?

MM: Obviously it did.

But according to your view, it couldn't have, because it doesn't explain the issues that needed to be addressed. It doesn't explain how that when the wicked are destroyed the angels will no longer be confused that the death of the wicked is due to an arbitrary of act of power from God, if, indeed, they die due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God.

There's some loose ends that need to be tied together here. If the wicked die because God rains fire down from heaven to destroy them, how could Jesus' death in any way resolve the angel's confusion that this fire raining down from God comes from God? What does Jesus' death have to do with this? As you keep pointing out, Jesus didn't die in the lake of fire.

You keep pointing out that Jesus' death was very different than the death of the wicked. How then does Jesus' death explain it? I don't see how this makes any sense. She doesn't say that Jesus' death resolves the doubts the angels would have due to the soul anguish the wicked suffer. Please consider the quote:

Then the end will come. God will vindicate His law and deliver His people. Satan and all who have joined him in rebellion will be cut off. Sin and sinners will perish, root and branch, (Mal. 4:1),--Satan the root, and his followers the branches. The word will be fulfilled to the prince of evil, "Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; . . . I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. . . . Thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Then "the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be;" "they shall be as though they had not been." Ezek. 28:6-19; Ps. 37:10; Obadiah 16.

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God....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. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.(DA 764)

How do you get that Jesus' death explains only the soul anguish of the wicked from this?

TE: It's not one thing for Christ and another for someone else. If that were the case, it wouldn't be true that Christ suffered the punishment of sin.

MM: Of course He did. Jesus drained the dregs of the cup of trembling. He tasted death for all of us. He suffered the ultimate agony because He didn’t die prematurely. He was triumphant over sin and death. He conquered them. They didn’t kill Him or cause His death. He laid down His own life after He had gained the victory, after He defeated them.

If Jesus exhausted the penalty of sin, then how could Satan bear it?

DA 758
Christ did not yield up His life till He had accomplished the work which He came to do, and with His parting breath He exclaimed, "It is finished." John 19:30. The battle had been won. His right hand and His holy arm had gotten Him the victory. As a Conqueror He planted His banner on the eternal heights. Was there not joy among the angels? All heaven triumphed in the Saviour's victory. Satan was defeated, and knew that his kingdom was lost. {DA 758.1}

TE: How could Satan suffer for something he didn't do? How would that be just?

MM: Jesus defeated sin and death on the cross but He hasn’t eliminated them yet. He will accomplish this by placing them upon Satan in the lake of fire.

This doesn't address the question. The question is how would it be just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do?

TE: But sin is not like a toaster.

MM: If sin is unlike a toaster then why does it still exist in the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus placed it after earning the right to own it on the cross? I’m resisting the temptation to refer to burnt toast.

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. When it speaks of Jesus applying His blood to our sins, is that referring to literal blood? Is Jesus' real blood in the heavenly sanctuary? God is attempting to communicate spiritual truth to us.

This seems like when Jesus said "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" and the disciples replied "It is because we have no bread."

TE: Does this mean that God hated Jesus?

MM: God hates sin, and Jesus became sin for us. It is a mystery, right?

Does this mean God hated Jesus?

TE: *That's* the far greater thing that Christ did. But from the context, I think you had something else in mind.

MM: I agree with your insight, too. I believe in addition to suffering for every sin ever committed since the fall of man He also suffered for all the sins He as God was capable of committing.

Is this really what you meant? Or do you mean all the sins man could have committed? God is not capable of committing sin.

Simply suffering for the sins of man would not have been enough to demonstrate the hideousness of sin to the point no one would ever want to commit a sin again. The suffering Jesus experienced far exceeded what man or angel is capable of experiencing. And this display was necessary to uproot the seed of rebellion forever. Otherwise the mere punishment and death of a man or angel would have sufficed.

Would have sufficed for what? The problem is that the nature and results of sin were not known, and neither the character of God, nor the height and depth of His love. How could the death of a man or angel have clarified any of these issues?

TE: Everywhere the bearing of sin is mentioned, it is Jesus Christ who bears our sin.

MM: Except for the passages I quoted earlier on this thread where Sister White plainly says Satan must bear the sins of the saved in the lake of fire.

GC 485
The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited" (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. Thus the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment in the final eradication of sin and the deliverance of all who have been willing to renounce evil. {GC 485.3}

TE: How do you get that Jesus' death explains only the soul anguish of the wicked from this?

MM: There is nothing arbitrary about God punishing and destroying the wicked in the lake of fire. He does it because they are worthy. Listen to how the angels think and feel about the seven last plagues:

Revelation
16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.

TE: If Jesus exhausted the penalty of sin, then how could Satan bear it?

MM: Jesus earned the right to own our sin and second death. He did not eliminate them. He took them to heaven with Him. He will eliminate them with Satan in the lake of fire.

TE: This doesn't address the question. The question is how would it be just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do?

MM: How is it just and right for Jesus to volunteer to pay our sin debt? How God can justify saving and forgiving us? What is right and fair about it? It’s easier for me to understand Satan dying with my sin and second death than it is for me to understand how it is just for Jesus to die for my sin and second death.

TE: Is Jesus' real blood in the heavenly sanctuary?

MM: Yes. It’s in His veins and arteries. Our sin and second death is quarantined in His body and blood.

TE: Is this really what you meant? Or do you mean all the sins man could have committed? God is not capable of committing sin.

MM: Yes, I believe Jesus became sin for us. He suffered soul anguish as if He Himself had sinned in the same way He suffered as if He Himself were guilty of committing our sins.

TE: Would have sufficed for what?

MM: If suffering soul anguish in the same way the wicked will suffer it in the lake of fire is sufficient to uproot the seed of rebellion then Jesus need not have suffered and died. The fact only His death could uproot evil is evidence there is more to it than merely suffering for the sins of mankind.

Before addressing your post, I've asked you at least three times now if God hated Christ as He was dying on the cross.

TE: Everywhere the bearing of sin is mentioned, it is Jesus Christ who bears our sin.

MM: Except for the passages I quoted earlier on this thread where Sister White plainly says Satan must bear the sins of the saved in the lake of fire.

GC 485
The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited" (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked. Thus the great plan of redemption will reach its accomplishment in the final eradication of sin and the deliverance of all who have been willing to renounce evil. {GC 485.3}

This passage states that Satan bears the guilt of the sins HE HAS CAUSED God's people to commit. It says he will suffer the full penalty of sin. Of course the penatly he suffers is the penalty for his own sin. How could it be otherwise?

Your idea would have us throw away Scripture in favor of the SOP. That's not the way it should work. Instead we should compare inspired writings with one another with the conviction that they are *all* inspired, rather than throw something away in favor of another.

There are many passages in both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy which state that Jesus Christ is the sin-bearer.

TE: How do you get that Jesus' death explains only the soul anguish of the wicked from this?

MM: There is nothing arbitrary about God punishing and destroying the wicked in the lake of fire.

You didn't address my question. Please take another look. I'm dealing with the fact that the quote from the Desire of Ages is dealing with issues that are not on the surface having anything to do with soul anguish. The quote talks about the wicked being utterly destroyed. How does Jesus' death help the angels understand that when the wicked are utterly destroyed that it won't be due to an arbitrary act of God?

TE: If Jesus exhausted the penalty of sin, then how could Satan bear it?

MM: Jesus earned the right to own our sin and second death. He did not eliminate them. He took them to heaven with Him. He will eliminate them with Satan in the lake of fire.

If Jesus exhausted the penalty of sin, then how could Satan bear it? What needs to be addressed is that if Satan bears the penalty for our sin, then Jesus could not have exhausted it.

TE: This doesn't address the question. The question is how would it be just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do?

MM: How is it just and right for Jesus to volunteer to pay our sin debt? How God can justify saving and forgiving us? What is right and fair about it?

Why are you asking this? I anticipated your asking this, and answered this. I wrote:

I'm guessing you might ask in return how is it just and non-arbitrary for Jesus Christ to have suffered for what He didn't do. The answer to this is that Jesus voluntarily and graciously accepted the responsibility for our sin. "Let the punishment fall on Me."(ST 6/27/00)

Didn't you see this?

It’s easier for me to understand Satan dying with my sin and second death than it is for me to understand how it is just for Jesus to die for my sin and second death.

If it is easier for you to understand how it is just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do, then you should be able to answer the question, which so far you haven't. The question still remains, how would it be just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do?

TE: Is Jesus' real blood in the heavenly sanctuary?

MM: Yes. It’s in His veins and arteries. Our sin and second death is quarantined in His body and blood.

So does Jesus prick Himself so He can apply the bood in His veins and arteries to our sin? How does His literal blood actually get placed on our sins? Didn't Jesus already shed His blood? Isn't it His shed blood which gets applied? If it was shed, then it wouldn't be in His veins and arteries, would it?

TE: Is this really what you meant? Or do you mean all the sins man could have committed? God is not capable of committing sin.

MM: Yes, I believe Jesus became sin for us. He suffered soul anguish as if He Himself had sinned in the same way He suffered as if He Himself were guilty of committing our sins.

You didn't address my question. Your previous post spoke of Christ suffering for all the sin He as God would be capable of commiting. But God cannot commit sin. So I asked if this was a typographical error, or if you really meant to refer to God's sinning. You do agree that God cannot commit sin, don't you?

TE: Would have sufficed for what?

MM: If suffering soul anguish in the same way the wicked will suffer it in the lake of fire is sufficient to uproot the seed of rebellion then Jesus need not have suffered and died. The fact only His death could uproot evil is evidence there is more to it than merely suffering for the sins of mankind.

You didn't address my question. I pointed out the the death of the wicked or an angel would not have addressed the issues of the Great Controversy, which involve the nature of Satan's government vs. God's, and Satan's character vs. God's character. My question is how the death of a person or angel could answer the questions Satan raised.

TE: Before addressing your post, I've asked you at least three times now if God hated Christ as He was dying on the cross.

MM: God hates sin, and Jesus became sin for us. It is a mystery, right? That’s my final answer.

TE: How does Jesus' death help the angels understand that when the wicked are utterly destroyed that it won't be due to an arbitrary act of God?

MM: You believe God punishing and destroying the wicked in the lake of fire is arbitrary. I don’t. You believe Jesus demonstrated all there is to know about the punishment and destruction of the wicked in the lake of fire. I disagree.

TE: If it is easier for you to understand how it is just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do, then you should be able to answer the question, which so far you haven't. The question still remains, how would it be just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do?

MM: Because he tempted us to do it.

TE: Your previous post spoke of Christ suffering for all the sin He as God would be capable of commiting.

MM: He suffered soul anguish as if He Himself had sinned in the same way He suffered as if He Himself were guilty of committing our sins. It’s both.

TE: My question is how the death of a person or angel could answer the questions Satan raised.

MM: If Jesus only suffered in the same way a man of angel suffers then there was nothing special about His suffering. But if He suffered in a way only the Son of God could suffer, in a way men and angels cannot suffer, then the suffering or men and angels would not have sufficed. So, what made Jesus' suffering better?

TE: Before addressing your post, I've asked you at least three times now if God hated Christ as He was dying on the cross.

MM: God hates sin, and Jesus became sin for us. It is a mystery, right? That’s my final answer.

That's not an answer. You're just asking another question. What's the mystery? That God hated Christ? What?

TE: How does Jesus' death help the angels understand that when the wicked are utterly destroyed that it won't be due to an arbitrary act of God?

MM: You believe God punishing and destroying the wicked in the lake of fire is arbitrary.

The definition of arbitrary is by individual discretion. This is as opposed to cause and effect. I believe the wicked suffer and die as a result of their sin. They reap what they have sown. God performs no special action to cause them to die. God is just Himself, and they die, because they choose to separate themselves from Him. This is what it means to say that the process is non-arbitrary. This is just what the Spirit of Prophecy says:

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. 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. (DA 764)

Your merely saying your view is not arbitrary does not make it not arbitrary. It is arbitrary because it rejects the principle the Spirit of Propechy outlines here. You would have the wicked dying not as "the inevitable result of sin," not as a result of choosing to separate from God, not by being slayed by the light of His glory, but as a special, or imposed, or arbitrary (these are all synonymns) act of God.

I don’t.

Yes you do! You believe that God, by an act of individual discretion, executes the wicked. This is saying the same thing. "Arbitrary" = "Act of individual discretion." This is the primary definition of the term, and this is how I'm using it. I'm not using it to mean "capricious," or "on a whim," as I think you are taking it.

Here's Webster's, primary defintion:

depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law (the manner of punishment is arbitrary)

Once again, this is precisely describing what you believe. God uses His individual discretion as a judge to execute punishment. This is arbtirary (see defintion).

You believe Jesus demonstrated all there is to know about the punishment and destruction of the wicked in the lake of fire. I disagree.

I beleive what the Spirit of Prophecy states about this. She says:

All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." Testimonies for the Church, 8:286.

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. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.

This says that the death of Christ explained the destruction of the wicked, so that when they are destroyed there will no longer be the evil seed of doubt in their minds which would have been there had Christ not died. Indeed, I do believe what she said here is true.

TE: If it is easier for you to understand how it is just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do, then you should be able to answer the question, which so far you haven't. The question still remains, how would it be just for Satan to suffer for something he didn't do?

MM: Because he tempted us to do it.

Which is what he suffers for. His part in the thing. His guilt. This is just.

TE: Your previous post spoke of Christ suffering for all the sin He as God would be capable of commiting.

MM: He suffered soul anguish as if He Himself had sinned in the same way He suffered as if He Himself were guilty of committing our sins. It’s both.

God is not capable of commiting any sin. I asked if you agreed with this. Do you? You stated otherwise. I'm guessing it was just a miss-step. Am I right?

TE: My question is how the death of a person or angel could answer the questions Satan raised.

MM: If Jesus only suffered in the same way a man of angel suffers then there was nothing special about His suffering. But if He suffered in a way only the Son of God could suffer, in a way men and angels cannot suffer, then the suffering or men and angels would not have sufficed. So, what made Jesus' suffering better?

Jesus' suffering was "better" because it addressed the questions Satan had raised. My question to you still remains. How could the death of a person or angel answer the questions Satan raised? I suggest, there's no way it could. Hence for you to suggest that an angel or mere person could have suffered or died in the place of Jesus is pointless.

We're getting away from the original context of the question, because you haven't answered it. When you refuse to answer questions and I have to reask them 3 or 4 or 6 times, then this happens. Why not just answer the question the first time it's asked? That would make the conversation flow much better.

TE: Your merely saying your view is not arbitrary does not make it not arbitrary. It is arbitrary because it rejects the principle the Spirit of Propechy outlines here.

MM: On this we shall have to disagree.

TE: God is not capable of commiting any sin. I asked if you agreed with this. Do you? You stated otherwise. I'm guessing it was just a miss-step. Am I right?

MM: For someone who believes Jesus could have failed I’m surprised you’re having such a hard time with this insight. "He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." {FLB 49.4}

TE: My question to you still remains.

MM: I am unable to answer the question to your satisfaction.

1.Do you disagree that God punishes on the basis of His individual discretion?

2.MM, God cannot sin. God cannot even be tempted:

God cannot be tempted by evil. (James 1:13)

It was as a man that Jesus was tempted, and it was a man that Christ could have sinned.

3.You wrote: The suffering Jesus experienced far exceeded what man or angel is capable of experiencing. And this display was necessary to uproot the seed of rebellion forever. Otherwise the mere punishment and death of a man or angel would have sufficed.

I responded: Would have sufficed for what? The problem is that the nature and results of sin were not known, and neither the character of God, nor the height and depth of His love. How could the death of a man or angel have clarified any of these issues?

You have refused to answer this question, so I'll accept this as an admission that your original statement, that "otherwise the mere punishment and death of a man or angel would have sufficed" is untrue, or at least not defesible, since you're not defending it.