and this makes clear what ellen white was referring to in making the statement you presented.

in researching and studying i am seeing that we understand only very superficially what the real issues are.

C:Is it purely down to hanging on to sin, and not about God punishing all persistant rebels against his government? NO!! - but Tom says yes.

T:No, I say no. Colin, I don't understand why in nearly every post I have to keep repeating the request for you to quote me as opposed to misrepresenting what I've said. I really don't understand this. Please stop doing this.

C:Because, Tom, discussion is more than digging up quotes, let alone the time to find them, which you've spread throughout this forum. It frustrates you, but every single relevant statement of yours cannot actually be found. We're left with memory.

T:It should be clear from the fact that I keep quoting this that I believe that rebels must be dealt with. Where we differ is as to what the punishment consists of. Is it something arbitrary God does to them, or is it the result of choosing sin?

C:Well, there you've said it, again - so I needn't go searching everywhere for it in vain: the penalty for sin is the result of choosing sin; you just denied vociferously that it was the result of hanging on to sin.

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. 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)

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.(DA 107)

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.

But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them.

The divine judgement on sin by fire and punishment, ending relatively swiftly in eternal annihilation, is in the Bible and SOP - as quoted here already, this time too, so, as Rosangela has said of your past discussions here over how many years, that you don't believe that is your own fault.

When one writes that a certain passage "says that Lucifer could of been pardon without the shedding of the blood of Christ," and that passage does not say any such thing -- I think we should raise questions.

Where is a passage stating how a repentant, submissive Lucifer would be re-instated without the redemption price?

That repentance and submission was absolutely necessary for his re-instatement, is obviously true. But how would Lucifer's repentance and submission be an "atonement" to convince the whole universe of anything?

The questions, doubts, insinuations and confusion had been tossed out by Lucifer, and like feathers in the wind they could not just be regathered and all things continue as before.

The questioning would continue -- his lying charges against the divine character and government and that God was seeking merely the exaltation of himself in requiring submission and obedience from his creatures, --those doubts instilled in intelligent minds would raise the question -- "did God force Lucifer into submission?"

God in His great mercy bore long with Lucifer. He was not immediately degraded from his exalted station when he first indulged the spirit of discontent, nor even when he began to present his false claims before the loyal angels. Long was he retained in heaven. Again and again he was offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission. (GC 496)

Tom misunderstood your comment about his quote, didn't he?

Hi Colin, I haven't read the whole context of the quote Tom brought here, however, this quote does say that Lucifer could of been pardon without the shedding of the blood of Christ. So that is quite a strong EGW quote that can negate the belief of "penal substitution".

Don't know what I said to this last time..., but both you two, courtesy of Tom, aren't looking also at the Bible and SOP on the judgement of God against sin with hell fire, and everything placing any human there. How Lucifer gets there is his own fault, and immaterial to our salvation, since Lucifer isn't a candidate for salvation, being the first in the queue for God's judgement of hell.

Is there a penalty for sin? Yes, we all agree on that. Is it purely down to hanging on to sin, and not about God punishing all persistant rebels against his government? NO!! - but Tom says yes..., in his own words, doesn't he?! What has Tom missed, while he only shows you a few select quotes for his alternative to our avenging God, Judge of this world? Has he misrepresented Ellen White's total teaching on God's mercy & justice?

Have you two remembered the end of Jn 3, where Jesus says disbelieving his gospel is a condemning choice? No-one is judged for continuing in sin!! It's rejecting God's gospel of his Son which brings judgement!

Did God judge the continuously wicked world of Noah only by turning away, and letting natural, sinful mayhem reign? Didn't God unleash & control, that is inflict, that judgement of flooding the earth in every single part of it happening? Isn't Rev 20 accurate enough in saying that the wicked are punished for their unconfessed and unforgiven sins, with fire and death from heaven? - or is it all figurative of the brightness of God's glory terrorising the wicked to death? What sort of judgement scene is that, with a great white throne? Real judge, real judgement of God, real, direct punishment: eternal annihilation - That's Sister White's description of it! - remember??

I have no doubt God clears up any and all confusion and doubt left among men as to what sin is, but he equally clears up what his holiness and justice and grace is: during the probation of grace God is lenient and merciful - and just, against our sin placed on our substitute, but in that day he is the living, avenging Judge of the universe.

EGW is unambiguous that the penalty of sin has to be executed by God on the sinner, in Christ, so that salvation from God's law's penalty can be just and not pardoning without God himself atoning for his people. God graceously for us executes the penalty for our sins on our sin bearer, his own dear Son: EGW says that unless the Father upheld his law on himself against us in Christ, his character would be impeached. She's equally clear that those who reject that graceous salvation from his justice shall receive his justice in full measure, with real fire burning proportionate to their evil deeds till they are destroyed body and soul.
Does God not destroy sin, root and branch, body and soul, in all who have rejected his mercy and grace? Didn't Jesus himself - Tom's last line of defence when avoiding Revelation and teh Pauline epistles - warn all men to fear and respect God who can destroy body and soul, while sin by itself and its inventor, Satan, cannot?!

R&H VOL. XIV. - BATTLE CREEK, MICH., FIFTH-DAY, OCTOBER 6, 1859. - NO. 20.
c. Matt.xxv,46. "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." We raise no issue on the duration of the punishment brought to view in this text, but only on its nature. The difficulty we apprehend arises from confounding punishment with conscious suffering, whereas it is not necessarily such. Mark where the antithesis occurs: it is between life and punishment. Do not change these terms, as is too often done, to happiness and misery. We enter our solemn protest against such treatment of the word of God. We believe that Inspiration knew what ideas it wished to convey, and in what language to convey them. We therefore plead for the plain and literal import of its terms. Life then means life; and life here is just the opposite of the punishment brought to view. But is eternal life in misery the opposite of eternal life as such? This will hardly be claimed by any one. It is rather an eternal "cutting off" from life; and idea which enters largely into the definition of the word here translated punishment. That an eternal deprivation of life would be eternal punishment we think must be evident to all, besides being directly declared to be such by an inspired apostle. See 2Thess.i,9, where we are told what the punishment is, and the same term is used to denote its duration; "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from [or by, see chap.ii,8; Acts iii,19] the presence of the Lord."

The wicked shall be destroyed. "The Lord preserveth all them that love him; but all the wicked will he destroy." Here preservation is promised only to those who love God, and in opposition to this, destruction is threatened to the wicked. But human wisdom teaches us that God will preserve the wicked in hell - preserve them for the mere sake of torturing them. Mr. Benson, a English divine, says, "God is therefore present in hell to see the punishment of these rebels. His fiery indignation kindles and his incensed fury feeds the flame of their torment, while his powerful presence and operation maintain their being, and render all their powers most acutely sensible, thus setting the keenest edge upon their pain, and making it cut most intolerably deep."

TWO ALLEGED AND FINAL DIFFICULTIES CONSIDERED.
As in the ages before our existence we suffered no punishment, so it is claimed it will be no punishment to be reduced to that state again. To this we reply, that those who never had an existence cannot, of course, be conceived of in relation to rewards and punishments at all. But when a person has once seen the light of life, when he has lived long enough to taste its sweets and appreciate its blessings, is it then no punishment to be deprived of it? Is it no evil? is it no loss? Says Luther Lee, "We maintain that the simple loss of existence cannot be a penalty or punishment in the circumstances of the sinner after the general resurrection."* And what are these circumstances? He comes up to the beloved city, and sees the people of God in the everlasting kingdom. Then, says the Saviour, addressing a class of sinners, there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God. What is the cause of this wailing? It is not that they have to choose between annihilation or eternal torture. Had they this privilege, some might perhaps choose the former; others would not. But with eternal misery the sinner has nothing to do. That is but a thing of the imagination, and cannot enter in any wise into his account. The only conditions between which he can draw his cheerless comparisons are, the blessed and happy state of the righteous within the city of God, and his own hapless lot outside its walls. And we may well infer from the nature of the case, as well as the Saviour's language, that it is because he finds himself thus thrust out, that he lifts up his voice in lamentation and woe. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God, and ye yourselves thrust out!" The sinner then begins to see what he has lost; the sense of it, like a barbed arrow, pierces his soul; and the thought that it might have been his but for his own self-willed and perverse career, sets the keenest edge upon every pang of remorse. And as he looks far away into eternity, to the utmost limit which the mind's eye can reach, and gets a glimpse of the inconceivable blessedness and glory which he might have enjoyed, but for his idol sin, the hopeless thought that all is lost will be sufficient to rend the hardest and most obdurate heart with unutterable agony. Say not then that loss of existence under such circumstances is no penalty or punishment. Those who thus speak now, should it be their lot at last to try, in person, the truth of their statements, we venture to affirm would find their ideas of the subject intensely modified. At any rate, may it never be our lot, dear reader, to be brought to so fearful a test.

But again: The Bible plainly teaches degrees of punishment; and how is this compatible, it is asked, with the idea of a mere state of death to which all alike will be reduced? Let us ask the believers in eternal misery how they will maintain degrees in their system. They tell us the intensity of the pain endured will be in each case proportioned to the guilt of the sufferer. But how can this be? Are not the flames of hell equally severe in all parts? and will they not equally affect all the immaterial souls cast therein? But God can interpose, it is answered, to produce the effect desired. Very well, then, we reply, cannot he also interpose, if necessary, according to our view, and graduate the pain attendant upon the sinner's being reduced to a state of death as the climax of his penalty? So then our view is equal with the common one in this respect, while it possesses a great advantage over it in another; for while that has to find its degrees of punishment in intensity of pain alone, the duration in all cases being equal, ours may have not only degrees in pain, but in duration also; for while some may perish in a short space of time, the weary sufferings of others may be long drawn out. But yet, we apprehend, that the bodily suffering will be but an unnoticed trifle compared with that mental agony, that keen anguish which will rack their souls as they get a view of their incomparable loss, each according to his capacity of appreciation. The youth who had but little more than reached the years of accountability and died perhaps with just enough guilt upon him to debar him from heaven, being less able to comprehend his situation and his loss, will of course feel it less. To him of older years, more capacity, and consequently a deeper experience in sin, the burden of his fate, will be proportionately greater. While the man of giant intellect, and almost boundless comprehension, who thereby possessed greater influence for evil, and hence was the more guilty for devoting those powers to that evil, being able to understand his situation fully, comprehend his fate and realize his loss, will feel it most keenly of all. Into his soul indeed the iron will enter most intolerably deep. And thus, by an established law of mind, the sufferings of each may be most accurately adjusted to the magnitude of their guilt.


But the majority are affected by it far differently. Every better emotion of their nature revolts at the idea, and they will not accept it. They cannot believe that God is thus cruel, tyrannical, revengeful, implacable; the personification, in short, of every trait of character, which when seen in men here, we consider unmistakable marks of debasement and degradation.

But how with the view we have tried to present? Quite the reverse as our own observation proves. Instances have come under our immediate knowledge of persons who, when they saw the divine harmony of God's system of government, as brought to view in his word, when they saw the just and reasonable disposition which the Bible declares that he will make of all those who will persist in rebellion against him, - a disposition in which justice and mercy so beautifully blend, have been able to take that Bible and say that for the first time in their life they could believe it to be the book of God. And believing this, they have been led to turn their feet into its testimonies, and strive by obedience to its plain requirements to escape a doom which they could see to be just, and therefore know to be certain. This has been the experience of many. Let then the impression no longer exist, and the assertion no more be made, that these views tend to irreligion and infidelity. Their fruits everywhere show just the reverse.

Can it then be wondered at that we should be solicitous to disabuse the minds of the people in this respect? Shall we not have a zeal for the Lord, and be untiring in our efforts to wipe off from the book and the character of God, the aspersions which are by this doctrine cast upon it? God represents himself to his creatures by his own sweet name of Love; he declares that he is very pitiful and of tender mercy, long-suffering and slow to anger, not hasty to execute sentence against an evil work, not gratified in any manner by the death of the wicked, and not willing that any should perish; he declares that he delighteth in mercy, that he will not contend forever, neither be always wroth. ... How fearfully is his character misrepresented! What a bold and audacious libel is uttered against his holy name!