M: You are attempting to restate what I believe, why not stick to what I stated? Also, there are aspects of the law which are not a transcript of God's character.
T: This isn't what you mean, is it? Don't you mean there are aspects of God's character which the law does not cover, such as mercy? There's nothing in the law which is not present in God's character, correct?
Yes, mercy is an aspect of God’s character which is not a part of the law. The law demands death for sin because it is a part of God’s character. Death must happen in consequence of sin. God has bound Himself by His word and by His law to execute the death penalty, which He did on the cross and will do again at the end of time in the lake of fire. The security of the Universe depends on it.
M: You wrote, “It seems you are saying that God cannot freely forgive sinners because He values justice.” But there is no way anyone would conclude this based on what I wrote above, namely, “These attributes of God’s character were demonstrated when Jesus, by dying on the cross, earned the right to freely forgive penitent sinners.”
T: So you disagree that God cannot freely forgive sinners because of justice? What is the reason then? (Please answer without mentioning the law).
God earned the right on the cross to freely forgive penitent sinners. He does not have the right to freely forgive impenitent sinners, nor does He want to forgive impenitent sinners. The reason these things are true is because mercy and justice are attributes of God’s character. The security of the Universe depends on it.
M: You wrote, “I don't see how this is different than saying He cannot freely forgive sinners because He is just.” The difference is I didn’t say anything remotely close to it. Again, I said, “Jesus, by dying on the cross, earned the right to freely forgive penitent sinners.” Do you the diametrical difference? You said, “He cannot freely forgive sinners” and I said, He can “freely forgive penitent sinners”.
T: I'm still not seeing the answer to my question. What attribute of God's character prevents Him from being able to be able to forgive sinners freely?
You didn’t see the diametrical difference, did you? Sorry for the confusion. Let me spell it out more clearly. You keep leaving out the word “penitent” when you restate my position. You take my very detailed and specific statement and turn it into a generic and nonspecific statement. Mercy and justice are two of the key attributes of God’s character that compelled Him to let Jesus die on the cross so that He could earn the legal right to freely pardon and save penitent sinners, and so that He can execute impenitent sinners in the lake of fire.
M: The law was written in his heart, which, as you like to affirm, is better than being written on stone. The reason he knew something was amiss when new and strange thoughts and feelings initially occurred to him is because they warred against the loving law written in his heart. Otherwise, how would he have known?
T: Lucifer hated Christ. This was a problem, irrespective of any law, wasn't it?
Hating Jesus was a problem not in spite of the law but precisely because the royal law of love was an integral part of every fiber and function of his being. Hating Jesus was, under the circumstances, akin to swallowing a lit stick of dynamite. That’s the way God designed and created FMAs. God could have created Lucifer like a lizard and hating Jesus would have been impossible. Lizards were designed and programmed to love Jesus instinctively. But not FMAs. We are governed by a totally different law, namely, the ten commandments. When we live in harmony with them everything functions properly, but when don’t everything malfunctions.
M: Regarding the cure for Lucifer? Did such a cure exist? If so, what was it? Why didn’t it work? How was it different than what God did before Lucifer rebelled? So that your answer is meaningful, please post inspired statements to back it up.
T: Yes, a cure existed. The cure was to repent. The cure didn't work because Lucifer chose not to repent. No, the cure didn't change before or after Lucifer began to repent. When Lucifer hardened his heart to the point that he could no longer repent, he was irrevocably lost. The quotes I would cite are the same ones we've been considering, which deal with Lucifer's fall. The only other one I would add would be where the SOP speaks of Lucifer's wanting to return to heaven after it was too late. For example, SR 26. This shows what happens when one's heart becomes hardened.
Are you saying the cure for past sins is repentance? Law and justice demand death for sin, not repentance. Repentance means sorrow for the sin committed and trust in God to empower the sinner not to let it happen again. It has absolutely nothing to do with satisfying the just and loving demands of law and justice. You will never find a quote in the Bible or the SOP that says otherwise.
T: This isn't the arbitrary thing. The arbitrary thing is to ask the question "Why?" and then answer that question with "Because it makes sense to Him."
M: What is arbitrary about believing God executes capital punishment in cases involving sin because it makes sense to Him? Do you doubt that it makes sense to God? Do you know the mind of God well enough to know why He names it His “strange act”? I don’t pretend to know why God thinks capital punishment is right and reasonable. From my puny perspective it would make sense to just leave them dead and buried, not to resurrect them. But obviously it doesn’t make sense to God. So I concede God is right.
T: This is what arbitrary is. God's doing something for some reason that you don't understand, but because it makes sense to Him. Arbitrary is not necessarily bad, MM. Judges make arbitrary decisions by exercising their individual discretion. This is exactly what you are suggesting. You ask the question, "Why?" and answer it "Because this makes sense to Him," by which you imply that it doesn't make sense to you, or that there is any explainable reason for what God is doing. This is what arbitrary is.
There is nothing arbitrary about it from God’s perspective. My puny perspective doesn’t matter. There are things God does that make sense to me, but there are also things He does that make no sense to me, and I’m okay with it. I trust His judgment and I believe He will explain it to me one of these days, probably in heaven, so that it makes sense to me too.
T: It's hard to believe that you think that an animal's "love" can fulfill the law. It seems like you have an odd concept of what morality involves. If animals can obey the law, then they can disobey it too presumably. Do you believe they will be judged?
M: No, animals cannot break the law. They are governed by instinct. They cannot not act in harmony with it. God programmed them that way. I’m surprised you are arguing against it. I’m guessing you don’t have a dog.
T: If they act by instinct, how can they obey the law? If they can obey the law, how can they not disobey it? It's also laughable that you try to bring in my personal life into these questions. Because I don't agree that animals can fulfill the law you think I don't have a dog? As if anyone who has a dog would conclude that dogs can fulfill the law!
Right, I forgot you prefer to keeps things impersonal. Bummer. You asked, “If they act by instinct, how can they obey the law?” For the simple reason God designed them to instinctively act in harmony with the law. They have no choice. Just ask any dog owner and they’ll tell you their dogs love them all the time. They will also tell you that such love is heavenly.
M: Yeah, I figured you would say this, so I asked other people to read DA 763 and they concluded as I have (I didn’t prime them in any way). They all agreed that the same thing expressed in the positive would read, “This is an act of power on the part of God.”
I don't understand how anyone would conclude from the following . . .
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. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 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.
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.
. . . that the wicked die as a result of an act of God. I don't see how she could have stated more clearly or emphatically that this is not the case. She says the same thing 7 or 8 times in a row, that the wicked choose to die. She says had God *left* Satan to suffer the results of his sin, he would have perished. Left!! How do you get from "left" that this is the act of God? How do you get from death "is the inevitable result of sin," that sin does not cause death? How do you get from, "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." that this is act of God?
I just don't see how she could have more clearly stated that this isn't an act of God than what she said. If you're reading this, and getting from this that she is saying that the wicked die because of what God does to them, I don't know what to say. This seems to me to be making language say the exact opposite of what it's intended to communicate. It's not as if she made a single statement to the effect that the wicked die because of their own choice as opposed to what God does to them; she said this 10 times, one right after the other, in the space of just two paragraphs.
It’s a dog thing, Tom, you wouldn’t understand it. Ha! Just kidding. The same thing expressed in the positive would read, “This is an act of power on the part of God.” It is not an arbitrary act of power on the part of God. There is definitely nothing arbitrary about it. He never wields His power arbitrarily.
M: Tom, you and I both agree God works now to suspend the inevitable results of sin. Sinners do not now suffer the wages of sin, namely, the second death. Under normal circumstances the first sin would result in death, not a lifetime of subsequent sins ending in soul sleep. The question is – Why would death happen in consequence of one sin, especially a seemingly harmless sin like eating a piece of fruit, if God did not work to prevent it?
I believe the answer is obvious – Because God chooses not to execute sinners! The immediate execution of sinners is what He prevents. That’s why sinners do not die “in the day” they sin. But death did happen in consequence of sin, but it happened to a substitute. “Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the son of God. {1BC 1104.5}
T: Given that sin results in death, why should it take more than one sin to result in death? You ask why would death happen in consequence of one sin if God did not prevent it, and your answer is "Because God chooses not to execute sinners"? What sense does this make? Why do you think death is the result of sin because God executes sinners? From DA 764, we read:
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.
I don't see how this fits in with the idea that sin results in death because God executes those who sin. In this case, how could Satan die if God "left" him to perish? "Execute" and "leave" are diametrically opposed concepts.
Here, I’ll let Jude say it, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Ellen concurs, “The Lord is coming to execute judgment upon all who obey not the gospel.”
M: “This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God.” The “this” in her statement is referring to the passages she quoted in the previous paragraph, namely, “I will destroy thee.” That sin is not what kills sinners is obvious from the view you advocate, namely, that God must resurrect sinners, judges them, exposes them to the firelight of His undiluted presence and glory, and then puts them out of their misery in midst of their fits of rage.
T: The "this" is the death of the wicked. MM, it's the *second* death that is the inevitable result of sin. You write that God puts them out of their misery in the midst of their fits of rage, but don't you mean that God causes them inexpressible pain by burning them alive for many hours or many days?
The only difference between the first and second deaths is what sinners feel and sense before they die and as they are dying. The fact they will be engulfed with flames is nothing compared to their soul anguish. The flames do serve, though, to prevent them from being distracted with fits of rage against one another.
Again, that sin is not what kills sinners is obvious from the view you advocate, namely, that God must resurrect sinners, judge them, and then expose them to the undiluted firelight of His undiluted presence and glory. I’m not sure what you make of the fact God must use fire from above and fire from below to interrupt their fits of rage against one another.
T: Regarding your questions and answers, you ask, "to whom did He pay it," and then answer "to law and justice," which is still confusing the abstract concepts of law and justice with sentient beings. How can you answer any question that starts with "to whom" with "law and justice"? Neither "law" nor "justice" is a "whom." These are "whats."
M: There’s no fear of confusing the point. No one who reads the following kinds of statements are tempted to think Ellen is saying law and justice are sentient beings: “God always demanded good works, the law demands it . . .” {1SM 343.3} “Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon.” {AG 139.2}
T: Agreed. So no one should take this literally, since doing so would require doing the very thing you correctly say no one would be tempted to think.
I’m glad you agree that Jesus’ paying our sin debt of death to law and justice makes sense. It simply means what Jesus did on the cross satisfies the just and loving demands of law and justice. Death had to happen in consequence of sin. This is one of the many reasons why Jesus had to taste death for us.
M: I’m talking about the quote in DA 762. It doesn’t establish your assertion. Please post one that does. In case you have forgotten what your assertion is, here it is again – God made a conscious decision not to let Jesus die because it wouldn’t have worked to woo and win back Lucifer after he was guilty of sinning.
T: What I said was that God loved angels as much as men, and had the death of Christ resulted in the salvation of angels, God would have done so. Do you disagree with this? If so, why? Is it because you disagree that God loves angels as much as men, or because you don't think God would have given His son for angels?
You posted DA 762 to prove God made a conscious decision not to let Jesus die because it wouldn’t have worked to woo and win back Lucifer after he was guilty of sinning. I responded by saying it didn’t. You still haven’t posted a quote which does.
Yes, I agree God loves men and angels equally and that if Jesus’ death would have served to woo angels back God would have allowed it. I believe the death of Jesus to save sinners is the ultimate expression of God’s love, and the fact He felt it would not have served to woo back angels is evidence there was nothing He could do to save them after they ventured to sin. You seem to disagree with this observation. Why?
M: Yes, the “wages of sin is death”, and you’ll never hear me say otherwise.
T: I quoted half a dozen things. I have an idea that you would interpret that "the wages of sin is death" as "God executes those who sin." It's not so easy to interpret the other statements this way. (Actually, it's not that easy to interpret this one that way either, but the other ones even less so. For example, death "is the inevitable result of sin." "The sting of death is sin." "Sin, when it is finished, brings forth death." It's difficult to understand these verses as meaning, "God will execute those who sin.")
It is also difficult to discern from them that God must first resurrect them and then judge them and then expose them to His undiluted firelight - all these things must happen before they pay their sin debt of death in the lake of fire.
M: Where we differ is how and why sinners die at the end of time. I hear you answering this question by saying God must resurrect sinners, judge them, and then expose them to His undiluted glory . . .
T: I've never said anything like this, MM, and I've written hundreds of posts on this subject. I don't understand what's so difficult about quoting something I've said. I also don't understand how you can state things so differently than how I've stated things.
DA 764 says: “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.” This seems like an explanation of how sin results in death. Don't you think so? If one cuts oneself off from life, doesn't one die?
How does one cut oneself off from God? Is there an outlet they unplug themselves from? Are you taking this literally? If not, please explain it.
M: . . . which suggests you believe sinners suffer and die when they come in close proximity to God, which implies you believe they would not suffer and die if God maintained a safe distance.
T: No, MM, I've not suggested this. Out of curiosity, since God is omnipresent, how do you suggest this be done?
He has managed to prevent His firelight from consuming sinners with their sins since the fall of A&E, so I envision Him doing the same thing. He also managed to be next to Jesus on the cross in a dark cloud without consuming the sinners in the vicinity. These past 6,000 years proves sinners can live in the same Universe with God without being consumed by the firelight of His glory.
M: By the way, if left to themselves, if they had regular access to the tree of life, resurrected sinners could “eat and live forever”. Sin would be “immortalized”. That’s exactly how the inspired record reads. Do you agree with me? If not, why not?
T: I answered this, didn't I? Yes, I wrote: “For sin to be immortalized would involve God's giving life to sinners forever, wouldn't it? The tree couldn't give life apart from God, could it? The tree itself couldn't live without God, could it? It doesn't look to me that you're understanding what God is trying to communicate here.”
Yes, God would have to continue upholding the laws of nature; otherwise, neither plants, animals, nor humans could survive. If He did this God would not also have to do something else special for sinners to live eternally. All He would have to do is continue upholding the laws of nature. Do you agree?
M: You used to quote the following passage to prove sin is what causes sinners to die: To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 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. . . But 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 Thess. 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4} End Quote.
But this passage does not say sin is what causes sinners to die. Instead, it clearly says the firelight of God’s glory interacting with their sins is what causes them to die. Death is the result of a toxic combination of God’s firelight and sinner’s sins. Sin by itself is not enough to kill people. And God’s firelight by itself is not enough to kill people. It requires a union of sin and the firelight of God to cause people to die. Do you agree?
T: Regarding DA 107, of course I agree with that, as I've quoted this to you so many times. You stopped a sentence too soon! The very next sentence explains that the "light of the glory of God" is the revelation of His character. Of course, "light" means "revelation," and the glory of God is His character, so even from where you stopped this is clear.
Here’s the very next paragraph: “In the time of John the Baptist, Christ was about to appear as the revealer of the character of God. His very presence would make manifest to men their sin. Only as they were willing to be purged from sin could they enter into fellowship with Him. Only the pure in heart could abide in His presence. {DA 108.1} End Quote.
I hear you saying when sinners are exposed to the character of God it causes them to die. But earlier you said disconnecting from the source of life is what causes them to die. “The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.” Here Ellen says the light of God’s glory will slay them. Which is it? Do they disconnect and die or does the light of God’s glory slay them?
Also, in keeping with your tradition of comparing quote with quote, I thought it would be helpful to compare DA and GC. In the following passage Ellen says the fire God rains down on sinners in the midst of their fits of rage, and causes them to suffer soul anguish, is the same fire that burns up the rubble and rubbish of earth. Do you think this is the same fire she spoke about in the DA quote above? If not, why not?
Notwithstanding that Satan has been constrained to acknowledge God's justice and to bow to the supremacy of Christ, his character remains unchanged. The spirit of rebellion, like a mighty torrent, again bursts forth. Filled with frenzy, he determines not to yield the great controversy. The time has come for a last desperate struggle against the King of heaven. He rushes into the midst of his subjects and endeavors to inspire them with his own fury and arouse them to instant battle. But of all the countless millions whom he has allured into rebellion, there are none now to acknowledge his supremacy. His power is at an end. The wicked are filled with the same hatred of God that inspires Satan; but they see that their case is hopeless, that they cannot prevail against Jehovah. Their rage is kindled against Satan and those who have been his agents in deception, and with the fury of demons they turn upon them. {GC 671.2}
Saith the Lord: "Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit." "I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. . . . I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. . . . I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. . . . Thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Ezekiel 28:6-8, 16-19. {GC 672.1}
"Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." "The indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies: He hath utterly destroyed them, He hath delivered them to the slaughter." "Upon the wicked He shall rain quick burning coals, fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup." Isaiah 9:5; 34:2; Psalm 11:6, margin. Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:10. The earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire. It is the time of the judgment and perdition of ungodly men--"the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion." Isaiah 34:8. {GC 672.2}
The wicked receive their recompense in the earth. Proverbs 11:31. They "shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts." Malachi 4:1. Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch--Satan the root, his followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding, declare the righteousness of Jehovah. {GC 673.1}
Satan's work of ruin is forever ended. For six thousand years he has wrought his will, filling the earth with woe and causing grief throughout the universe. The whole creation has groaned and travailed together in pain. Now God's creatures are forever delivered from his presence and temptations. "The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they [the righteous] break forth into singing." Isaiah 14:7. And a shout of praise and triumph ascends from the whole loyal universe. "The voice of a great multitude," "as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings," is heard, saying: "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." Revelation 19:6. {GC 673.2}
While the earth was wrapped in the fire of destruction, the righteous abode safely in the Holy City. Upon those that had part in the first resurrection, the second death has no power. While God is to the wicked a consuming fire, He is to His people both a sun and a shield. Revelation 20:6; Psalm 84:11. {GC 673.3}
"I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." Revelation 21:1. The fire that consumes the wicked purifies the earth. Every trace of the curse is swept away. No eternally burning hell will keep before the ransomed the fearful consequences of sin. {GC 674.1}
Of course, she says basically the same thing in the following DA quote. She even uses the same quote from Ezekiel 28. The fire that God rains down on the wicked in the midst of their fits of rage, and causes them to suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness, is the same fire that burns up the rubble and rubbish of earth. And yet you seem to think this source of fire is symbolic. How do you reconcile this idea with what it sys here in these DA and GC quotes?
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. {DA 763.4}
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. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 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}
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 764.2}
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}
