It seems to me that what "arbitrary" means is exactly what's being suggested. Here's Webster's primary definition for "arbitrary".



Ellen White writes that the destruction of the wicked is *not* due to an arbitrary act of power of God, but rather as the result of their own choice. In DA 764 she makes this point over and over and over again. The death of the wicked is the consequence of their own decisions. It's not a punishment that's imposed by God; something that wouldn't happen if God didn't impose a punishment upon them. That's precisely her point.



I agree, which is why I don't think they die by burning. God is not cruel.

Perhaps I should just quote from DA 764:



God is the consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love destroys the wicked. This is obviously not referring to death by burning.



"Larva"? Ha ha. I'm not sure what you're wanting to say here in saying "how much lava would be left ... is ... improbable. This doesn't seem to make sense to me. "How much" seems to be asking a question. It's speaking of an undefined quantity. Then you say this undefined quantity is "improbable." I'm not seeing what you're trying to say here.



My point is that the wicked suffer proportionally for their sin because the punishment is inherent in the sin itself. The punishment is not something arbitrarily imposed by God.

The relevance of the destructiveness of fire is that the wicked will be resurrected with bodies such as we have, not resurrection bodies such as the righteous will have. Therefore literal fire would destroy them in a matter of seconds. In order for them not to be burned alive, but rather suffer for many hours or many days, God would have to somehow supernaturally keep them alive, so they could be burned alive for days. This is unspeakably cruel. This type of behavior, under international law, is defined as torture. Cruelty is Satanic.



Again, literal fire would destroy a person in a matter of seconds. Also, Ellen White writes that the glory of Him who is love destroys them. Also that the light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, slays the wicked. Clearly this is not referring to literal fire.

If the death of the wicked is caused by the glory of God, then it is not caused by literal fire. But literal fire would instantly kill a person, which gets us back to the scenario of God's supernaturally keeping people alive so He can torture them.



Cruelty is Satanic!



(sorry to cut your sentence off in the middle, but it was so long, I didn't see an alternative)



Again, cruelty is Satanic. If we have a view of the judgment that involves God acting in a way which is Satanic, IMO we need to rethink things.

Your argument here looks to be that it is OK for God to act cruelly. But cruelty is Satanic, and God is never Satanic. GC 541-543 brings out that the exclusion of the wicked from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and that God acts in mercy and love in allowing them their choice.



I agree. But this punishment is inherent in sin. It is not a cruel action caused by God.



No, I'm not defining punishment by natural fire as arbitrary due to God's character. Natural fire as punishment for sin would be arbitrary regardless of God's character (unless the wicked caused the fire themselves. There are some who believe this. While it makes the punishment non-arbitrary, which I believe is correct, I don't see how it accounts for proportionality in their punishment).



In Scripture, God's wrath is His giving the wicked over to the result of their sin. This is exactly what happens in the judgment. Again, as Ellen White points out, the exclusion of the wicked is voluntary with themselves. They do not wish to be in heaven.



The wicked die as a result of the light of the glory of God. They will not be burned alive as a means of punishment. God does not torture and kill people because they do not do what He says. IMO this is a horrible view of God to have, which can only do harm to one's own spirit. I can't see how it can but cause us to fear God, and incline us to be hard-hearted.

DA 764 brings out, again and again, that death is the inevitable result of sin. God is seeking to save us from sin, and the suffering and death which result from sin. Sin is the cause of these things, not God. We mustn't have the idea that by faith in Christ we are saved from God.

Thank you, Inga, for your comments just now: I await Tom's response to yourself.

Tom, you do realise we've switched well & truly to your other topic about the wrath and vengeance of "an offended God". Getting back to this topic's topic anytime soon?

Sorry, Tom: you don't appear to understand Webster's reference to judicial discretion, let alone the meaning of discretion - since you're glued so tightly to the rule of logic premised on immutable agape, leaving little if no room for the rest of God's attitude to Satan & sinners once saving grace and the great controversy are over.

Hopefully clarifying your reference to "what's being suggested" - who, what, when are you referring to? - won't change my understanding of your entire post.

First a better, general (primary) definition of "arbitrary", from Oxford, for Webster's definition you cited is too contextual, is not a primary definition, and misses the real thing - it appears you're good at maths, but not English :
Capricious and despotic is what Ellen White was alluding to by arbitrariness in your excerpt from her, not judicial discretion!!! God is obviously not being unfair, is her point: that should be pretty clear in her GC book.

The great controversy ended by the marriage of the lamb at the close of probation (yes, that's the event for anyone surprised by that reference... ) lays open to heaven and the watching universe what everyone shall see opened to them in the sky above at the day of judgement: lives condemned to eternal death for rejecting divine grace. The punishment following that judgement ceremony is neither capricious nor unloving, is indeed merciful, but is also proportionate to the lives lived, in the discretion of God - by the judgement of the saints during the millenium, "according to their works". And you're happy with punishment lasting longer for some than others so long as they are suffering the glory of God and not actual fire?

Judicial discretion is divine wisdom itself in action against the wicked after all information is revealed that has been recorded since iniquity was found in Lucifer and all wicked men and angels know that justice demands their punishment by the rule of law: where is the justice element in your position?? Prolonging the suffering of many proportionate to their deeds must happen just by God's glory? So he can't use fire, that's your basic point on combustion?

Cruelty is a matter of perception by us, not a matter purely of personality - Satan being bad and God being good. Part of justice is the emotional issue of catharsis: Both for the saints and for God, or is God not emotional against sin? Since we are in his image, are we to want catharsis but he's not?? This isn't retribution: catharsis is part of righteous justice, thus Jesus drove out the money changers and traders from the temple courts with a whip!...

The only problem with sin being inherently destructive of the wicked in the end, including proportionate punishment, is that sin in and of itself is not just!! - proportional punishment being the cathartic portion of justice. My character of God reference last time was to the question of fire or glory of God: this time, his character reference is to his wrath against sin and sin & sinners' proportional punishment in terms of his justice.

Thus, whether or not actual fire assists God's glory by his design in the judgement of hell, his justice personally prolongs the suffering: the sanctuary service tells us that, while the Lord's goat, the Lamb of God, suffered our eternal punishment for us, as us, the scape goat symbolises Satan's punishment of dying of starvation and loneliness. There is thus an element of torture in the punishment suffered by the wicked for their sins, according to the justice of God.

A punishment like hell fire is "imposed"?? You mean actual fire doesn't belong, with/from God, for sin? How do you perceive and portray God's justice and wrath against sin to be executed & carried out, respectively, in the judgement? Just God's glory, nothing else?

Dude! English is my native language. I understand "discretion".

The meaning of judicial discretion (which I also understand) is that the judge in a case takes all relevant matters into account, and decides upon a punishment which he deems appropriate. Depending on whether it's a repeated offense, if there were extenuating circumstances, etc., the judge may assign probation, or the maximum sentence, or something in between.

In the case of the wicked, their destruction does not take place because of God's exercising judicial discretion, but because of their own choice. In DA 764 she makes this point over and over again.

She points out that they make the decision to separate themselves from God, who alone is the source of life. Hence they die.

In speaking of Satan, next paragraph or so later, she points out that if he and his host reaped the full result of their sin, they would perish.

In regards to this tying into the other subject, it's not surprising, because if we accept the idea that Christ paid the penalty for our sin on the cross, then what that payment is (which we see in the judgment) comes into play. These two subjects go hand in hand.

If God acts arbitrarily in the judgment, then it makes sense that an arbitrary action of punishing Christ could have some effect in resolving things, but if He doesn't act arbitrarily in one place, then we wouldn't expect Him to act arbitrarily in the other.

Also, regarding this subject under discussion appearing in this topic, I tend to answer just about any questions or respond to any comments which are thrown my way. It's not a big deal to me what subjects get discussed in what topics. Personally, I try to be careful not to introduce off topic ideas, but I'll respond to whatever comes up in a thread. Whoever made the question or comment may have seen a connection (or why else did they bring it up), so that's good enough for me.



What?



Actually I'm superb at maths, and very good at English.



No, Colin, this is not at all what she is referring to. I considered the different definitions for "arbitrary" and picked the one that fit the context.

If you will look at the paragraphs cited in DA 764, you will see that your suggested definition does not fit. If her point were that God were not being capricious or despotic, she would have adduced some evidence that this was not the case. But she doesn't. Instead she argues that the destruction of the wicked is due to their own choice, a point she makes over and over again, and a point which fits the definition I cited for "arbitrary."



I wouldn't say I'm "happy" any more than God is "happy." It will be a very sad occasion.

What I've been pointing out is that the suffering of the wicked is not due to something God does to the wicked, that is, something imposed, or arbitrary, or artificial (whichever word you prefer), but is the result of their interaction with God due to how they themselves have ruined their character.

When God presents to them the circumstances of their lives, and how He loving, patiently, mercifully dealt with them, this causes them great suffering, in proportion to the light they have rejected and the sin they have committed. This is unavoidable, unless God were to avoid having a judgment altogether.



God doesn't act "against the wicked." As Ellen White points out in GC 541-543, God acts "for" the wicked, for their own good, which is consistent with God's character. God always acts in the best interest of His loved ones. Always.

The suffering of the wicked is not "prolonged." It occurs due to the light rejected and the sin committed.

That God cannot use fire isn't really the basic point, no. If one thinks of God artificially, or supernaturally, keeping people alive so that He can torture them (by whatever means), this would certainly be cruel behavior. Cruelty is Satanic.



I'm not following you here.



That sin is not just does not matter here. Sin carries with it negative consequences, and these negative consequences are proportional to the sin committed. God has no need to add imposed punishments to sin, because sin really is a bad thing that really does damage people and really does cause suffering and death.



I disagree with a couple of things here. First of all, His justice does not prolong the suffering. Quoting from GC



It's true that this was written against the doctrine of eternal torment, but the principles discussed here apply just as much to "temporary torment." God's hatred of sin is not the reason the existence of the wicked is perpetuated.

The second point I disagree with is that there is an element of torture in the punishment suffered by the wicked for their sins, according to the justice of God. Actually, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the words used here, as I could say them and mean them, but the words, I'm quite sure, would mean something very different to me.

The justice of God is allowing the wicked to receive the results of their choice, and one could well say that the wicked receive self-inflicted torture as a result of the damage they have caused themselves due to repeated rejection of God's grace. They have unfitted themselves to stand in God's presence.



No, I don't think the punishment of hell is imposed. This is already a long post, so I'll be very brief here. I can explain more fully later, if desired.

In regards to God's wrath for sin, I agree with what I have quoted in regards to what Fifield wrote regarding this. I don't have the quote readily available here, but I can try to quote it tomorrow. In brief, he said that if you want to see God's wrath for sin, look at Jesus to see Jesus' wrath for sin.

Also, God wrath in Scripture is presented as His giving up the sinner to receive the consequences of his decisions. There are several dozen examples of this in Scripture, the best known one being Romans 1 where several times Paul points out that God's wrath against unrighteousness is revealed by "giving up" the wicked. (also, it's interesting to not that this "giving up" is also used in reference to Christ; that is, God "gave Him up," and in so doing, His wrath for sin was manifest).

Regarding justice, justice in Scripture is not retributive, but restorative. The idea is to bring things back to "shalom," to their rightful place. There are many texts which bring this out. To mention just two, Zech 7:9 and Isa. 30:18 come to mind.

Of course, this brief description doesn't do justice (pun intended) to the topic.

A key point to bear in mind as we discuss the judgment is that God does not act out of character. This is an extremely vital point to understand, and one which Ellen White goes to great pains to explain in her discussion of the judgment (e.g. GC 541-543). I'll repeat a post I just wrote from the other thread which discusses this.

This is the post I was referring to as the post from the other thread that I would post here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When one gets caught in a discussion, points get made back and forth, but one's actual position can be lost in the shuffle. So I'd like to take the opportunity in this post to present a position without reference to points being discussed elsewhere in this thread. Specifically, I'd like to make some observations regarding the judgment.

I have been heavily influenced in my views by Ellen White's writings in "The Great Controversy" pages 541-543. I first read these pages many years ago and they had a profound impact on me then, and still do.

The first point that struck me was this:




I found the idea that God desires that we obey Him because we have an intelligent appreciation and admiration of His attributes of character to be very appealing.

Following this, she writes:




A number of points are made here:
1)The principles of kindness, mercy and love are manifest in the judgment.
2)God executes judgment upon the wicked for the good of all, including the wicked themselves.
3)God would make the wicked happy if they could.

Going on:




Here we see that
4)The purity, holiness, and peace of heaven is torture to the wicked.
5)The glory of God is a consuming fire to the wicked.
6)The wicked welcome destruction, as this is preferable to seeing the face of their Redeemer.
7)Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves.
8)Their exclusion from heaven is just *and merciful* on the part of God.

In considering this description, we see that God acts in harmony with His own character, the character which Jesus Christ revealed, of loving His enemies, acting in mercy, seeking to good for them, giving them what they want.

It seems that many miss the point that the wicked to not wish to be in heaven. God gives them what they want, although it causes Him great sorrow to do so.

Another point which should be brought out is that God does not act cruelly. Cruelty is Satanic. A bit earlier we read:




God does not, in the judgment, don a different character than what Jesus Christ revealed. He does not all of a sudden act cruelly, but He acts consistent with the attributes of His character of love and mercy, and acting the best interests of His loved ones. The judgment is not an event where the wicked are treated cruelly, nor given an eternal destiny against their will.

If A&E had died the same day they ate the forbidden fruit, law and justice would have been satisfied; there would have been no need to resurrect them and punish them again. There would have been no fire, no burning, no lake of fire.

Do you agree?

The plan of salvation prevents sinners from dying the instant they commit a sin.

Do you agree?

Because sinners do not die the instant they commit a sin, they live on to commit numerous sins.

Do you agree?

Law and justice (God) requires that each sin be punished according to its sinfulness.

Do you agree?

Jesus paid the price for the sins of the world. In judgment, unsaved sinners will suffer in proportion to their sinfulness.

Do you agree?

No.



No.



Yes.



Yes, but I believe the punishment is innate, not imposed.



Yes, although, again, the suffering is innate to their sin, not something arbitrarily imposed upon them.

How do your questions relate to the quote they follow?

Please explain your first two answers above. Thank you.

If they had died in the sense you are saying, it could only have been by experiencing judgment and fire. These things are the second death, which are wrapped up in sin.

The fire comes as a result of the conscience being made aware of reality. Adam and Eve could not bear to full impact of their guilt. Bearing such guilt results in death, the death which is the second death. When Christ bore our guilt, He experienced this death. ("My heart" -- which is to say, Christ's innermost thoughts and feelings; a reference to the mental anguish EGW speaks of, so great that His physical pain was hardly felt -- "melts like wax." The fire.)

When the wicked are resurrected, they will experience it. "To sin, wherever found, 'our God is a consuming fire.' Heb. 12:29.


Here's an EGW statement which brings out that Christ suffered the second death: (unless "the death which was ours" is interpreted to be something else, which I can't see what that could be)

Seems like it would take longer than an instant to die.

I agree with the idea that we only live physically because of the blessings of the plan of salvation, and that without such we would experience the second death upon sinning.

Do you agree then that A&E would not have died the first death, been resurrected, judged, suffer symbolic fire, die the second death, and then be consumed with the earth in literal fire?

BTW, that Jesus did not die the second death is evident from the fact it is the Scapegoat (Satan) that dies the second death, and from the fact Jesus resurrected Himself and is alive in heaven.

Also, where is it in the SOP where Sister White talks about the fact sinners would be unable to endure sinning without the protection afforded by the plan of salvation. Seems like she says how long they could survive sin before being consumed to death.