Why is there suffering?

The following is from a web site cited at the end. I'm curious if those who read this agree with this explanation:

The answer is that God himself is under attack, and over the most important issues—his nature and character. He is accused of being a divine tyrant, a punitive dictator—uncaring, unloving, untruthful. In allowing freedom, he is then charged with causing all that has gone wrong.

In order to answer, God has to allow freedom—freedom to experience the consequences of choices, freedom to see where sin and evil lead, freedom to see where suffering really comes from. God did not create a suffering world—it is the result of the work of the Enemy. And God temporarily permits this to continue so that all can see, and experience, and understand. Not just to vindicate himself, but to show what really happens when free beings make evil choices. So that the whole universe will see and know and decide—for truth and right. In this suffering is inevitable, and God, because of his granting of choice, cannot end it until the demonstration is over.

http://www.pineknoll.org/jg/39-jonathan-...em-of-suffering

Yes. I would say that I agree with this. I think it sums up the Great Controversy rather well. IOWs ... God has His hands tied and is not really able to interfere with the results of sin. Therefore ... when you pray to God for blessings .... He is really not able to answer them. The blessing will come in Heaven. But if He gave them to us now ... Satan would charge that we are Christians ONLY because we can 'get' things from God.

I should point out that He is able to inspire others to be 'His extremities'. He uses other Christians to bless us. When we are His ... we will go about doing good. But it is our choice.

Also ... we can bless ourselves. We can answer our own prayers. But, God has His hands tied like the post indicates.

Tom, what you posted makes it seem like God is not involved in the outcome of the GC. But God is anything but hands-off. He is actively and aggressively involved in the outcome of the GC. The Flood, Sodom, the Egyptian plagues, the stoning of the guy caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath, the demise of Nadab and Abihu, and the death of Korah and his comrades.

Such demonstrations of love and justice were necessary to understand the truth about mercy and justice.

How so? What I posted speaks to God's character being under attack. Nothing whatsoever is mentioned in regards to any of the things you mentioned. Your mentioning them looks to be completely off topic.

Coming back to the topic, how do you seem any implication that the fact that God's character is under attack means He is not involved in the GC?

The quote you posted portrays God being accused of being "a divine tyrant, a punitive dictator — uncaring, unloving, untruthful." And that, in allowing freedom, He is being "charged with causing all that has gone wrong."

The author goes on to explain that it is Satan, not God, who causes the suffering sinners experience when they sin. God simply stands back and permits it. "God did not create a suffering world — it is the result of the work of the Enemy. And God temporarily permits this to continue so that all can see, and experience, and understand."

I am not saying the fact God's character is under attack implies is He not involved in the GC. What I said is the author portrays God standing back, hands-off, watching the GC unfold. But the opposite is true. God is very much hands-on. He is actively involved in the outcome of the GC. He is not standing back watching Satan decide how the GC will unfold.

It was God, not natural law or Satan, that caused the Flood, that rained down fire on Sodom, that ransacked Egypt with ten plagues, that gave the order to stone to death the guy caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath, that killed Nadab and Abihu with fire, and that orchestrated the demise of Korah and his comrades.

Do you disagree with this? Here are the statements one by one:
1.God did not create a suffering world.
2.It is the result of the work of the Enemy.
3.God temporarily permits this to continue so that all can see, and experience, and understand.

Do you disagree with 1, 2, or 3?



No He doesn't. There's nothing in what I quoted that suggests this. If you think there is, please quote something, and point out where the author is saying or implying that God is "hands-off".



Of course He's involved. The cross proves this.



Right. He is actively engaged in Christ to fight battle against Satan. The GC is a war of ideas. Through Christ, God presents the truth.



You have no reason to bring this up. You have not the slightest clue what the author's ideas are on these points. The author has said nothing about this.

You're off base.

Please stick to what was quoted.

No.


So is the war in Iraq. Such wars involve combat, destruction of property, catastrophe, and loss of limb and life.


He implied it. The quote you posted portrays God being accused of being "a divine tyrant, a punitive dictator — uncaring, unloving, untruthful." And that, in allowing freedom, He is being "charged with causing all that has gone wrong."

What does he have in mind here? Why happened that gave rise to the charge God is a "punitive" dictator? What happened that resembles punishment? What has gone wrong that they are accusing God of causing?

The implication here is that you see these wars as similar. Is this how you really feel? The GC is like the war in Iraq? I see it as an entirely different thing.



No he didn't. You have no idea what the author's position is on these subjects. None at all. You're speaking out of school here.



The author's statement is very similar to this one.

The quote you posted portrays God being accused of being "a divine tyrant, a punitive dictator — uncaring, unloving, untruthful." And that, in allowing freedom, He is being "charged with causing all that has gone wrong."

What does he have in mind here? Examples?

Why happened that gave rise to the charge God is a "punitive" dictator? Examples?

What happened that resembles punishment? Examples?

What has "gone wrong" that they are accusing God of causing? Examples?

Without examples the author is just as guilty as the people he is writing about - making unsupported claims.

I pointed out what the author wrote is very similar to what Ellen White wrote. Is she guilty of unsupported claims as well? If not, how is what she wrote different than what the author wrote?

If you want to know more about what the author has in mind, why don't you just read the article?

1. The first is that the answer is unknowable — at least for the moment.

2. The second answer relates to our free will.

3. A third response is that experiencing suffering builds character.

4. Because the Devil chose this way, which is the opposite of God.

5. Because choosing wrong instead of right has its own inevitable, natural results.

The author seems to have omitted law and justice from his list of reasons. Perhaps he isn't addressing this cosmic aspect of the problem? Maybe he is focusing on things humans do to each other, rather than what God has caused or permitted. But the execution of justice and judgment is another reason why suffering and death happen.

The author's own answer does not resolve one of the problems he brought up - "But it [suffering builds character] does not resolve the larger questions — how much do babies drowned in the tsunami (or the Flood) actually learn? How were their characters built? While survivors may learn, what of the victims of suffering who do not?"

In citing the Flood he is implicating God. Nothing is more clearly taught in the Bible and the SOP that God is the one who took it upon Himself to punish and destroy the antediluvians who refused embarkation on the Ark. God, not the Devil or evil men and women, employed the forces of nature to destroy millions of impenitent sinners, whose thoughts were only evil continually. Listen:

God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.--PC 136 (1894). {LDE 242.3}

God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner. Men reason from their own low standard of right and justice. "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself" (Ps. 50:21). They measure God by themselves. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do. . . . {LDE 240.5}

In no kingdom or government is it left to the lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who have broken the law. All we have, all the bounties of His grace which we possess, we owe to God. The aggravating character of sin against such a God cannot be estimated any more than the heavens can be measured with a span. God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the Lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force. {LDE 241.1}

The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}

Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?--12MR 207-209; 10MR 265 (1876). {LDE 241.3}

He dealt with it here:"Not as some imposed penalty by a divine dictator, but the inevitable result foreseen by a loving Creator."



Do you mean specifically natural disasters? He certainly dealt with the overall question here (last two paragraphs).

Regarding the Flood, the author wasn't discussing this, other than to say that the reason for it was not to build character.

I think you're getting distracted by looking at the forest rather than the tree. The author wasn't dealing with trees (individual incidents) but providing a general framework to answer the question as to why suffering exists. His answer is it exists because "the Devil chose this way" and "we have bought into the Devil's way." I think this is exactly right.

This answers why suffering exists, but the part you quoted does not treat the main issue the author was dealing with, which is why God allows it:

Are you suggesting he rejected it as a reason?


So, the reason why innocent babies suffer and die is because the Devil chose this way, because people have bought into his way? This doesn't answer the questions the authored posed: "But it’s THE question when it comes to God — why doesn’t he stop it? And if God is God, can’t he intervene? So what’s the answer? Is God responsible for suffering — or at least not preventing it?"

Actually, the author makes it clear that God can stop it but that He chooses not to. Which I think is wrong. I think it makes God out to be an aloof and uncaring Deity.

He said "not," so that is rejecting it as a reason.



Yes, this is what he is dealing with. He raised the very questions you are asking and answered them.



Where does he say this?



Why?

The idea that God is sitting back and allowing the Devil to wreak havoc so that it is obvious to everyone that rebelling against God's will is bad is as bad as sin itself. God is not leaving it up to Satan to orchestrate the outcome of the GC. Neither is He leaving it up to natural law. On these things we shall have to disagree.

What do you think of this, MM?

I agree with it. She is not saying God sits back and allows Satan to run amuck. Job's case informs us that God limits what Satan can and cannot do. God is in control - not Satan.

How is this any different than the other quote I cited? I don't see what you're disagreeing with.

Am I disagreeing with something?

Yes, MM.

Right.

Ok, so back to my question. It looks to me like the author is pretty much paraphrasing EGW's comment, yet you agree with her but disagree with him. Why?

The author believes God sits back and allows the devil to do whatever he chooses; whereas, Sister White makes it clear God is in control. The devil is limited in what God allows him to do. Satan is not free to do whatever he pleases. Plus, God has done things that others have blamed on Satan.

Why do you think this? He certainly didn't say this. If I were a betting man, I'd take 1000 to 1 odds the author doesn't believe this. Your imputing an idea to him which has virtually no chance of being true.



He's just saying the same thing she is. Please compare the passages, and cite something of the author's which is different than what EGW wrote. Specifically cite something on this point where you say they are saying different things.

God does not permit suffering only to prove Satan's way is wrong. Sometimes He allows it to prove His way is right. Listen:

To many minds a deep mystery surrounds the fate of John the Baptist. They question why he should have been left to languish and die in prison. The mystery of this dark providence our human vision cannot penetrate; but it can never shake our confidence in God when we remember that John was but a sharer in the sufferings of Christ. . . . {CC 278.2}

Jesus did not interpose to deliver His servant. He knew that John would bear the test. Gladly would the Saviour have come to John, to brighten the dungeon gloom with His own presence. But He was not to place Himself in the hands of enemies and imperil His own mission. Gladly would He have delivered His faithful servant. But for the sake of thousands who in after years must pass from prison to death, John was to drink the cup of martyrdom. As the followers of Jesus should languish in lonely cells, or perish by the sword, the rack, or the fagot, . . . what a stay to their hearts would be the thought that John the Baptist, to whose faithfulness Christ Himself had borne witness, had passed through a similar experience! {CC 278.3}

Satan was permitted to cut short the earthly life of God's messenger; but that life which "is hid with Christ in God," the destroyer could not reach. Col. 3:3. He exulted that he had brought sorrow upon Christ, but he had failed of conquering John. Death itself only placed him forever beyond the power of temptation. . . . {CC 278.4}

God never leads His children otherwise than they would choose to be led, if they could see the end from the beginning, and discern the glory of the purpose which they are fulfilling as coworkers with Him. Not Enoch, who was translated to heaven, not Elijah, who ascended in a chariot of fire, was greater or more honored than John the Baptist, who perished alone in the dungeon. "Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And of all the gifts that Heaven can bestow upon men, fellowship with Christ in His sufferings is the most weighty trust and the highest honor. {CC 278.5}

The author rejects the idea that on occasion God causes or permits sinners to suffer and die because law and justice require it.

MM, it's a Great Controversy. There are two parties involved. Showing Satan's way is wrong *is* showing His way is right. There are only two ways.



Let's not put words in his mouth. In the quote you mentioned, he said, "Not as some imposed penalty by a divine dictator, but the inevitable result foreseen by a loving Creator."

Do you disagree with this? These are his words, so let's address this, not your interpretation of my interpretation of something he said.

I'll make the question more general. Where is something the author wrote that you disagree with? Please quote it and explain what you disagree with. You should be able to do this without reference to anything I've written.

MM: I'm sorry, Tom, but I totally disagree with this idea. Proving that Satan's way is wrong does not disprove his accusations about God love and law. It is not enough for Satan to fail to produce an alternate path that is just as satisfying as God's path. Just because Satan cannot do it does not prove it's impossible. He is, after all, only a created being. In order to win the GC God must also demonstrate beyond question that His way is truly the one and only way that can satisfy people forever.


Okay, let's back up to my original observation, which was, "The author seems to have omitted law and justice from his list of reasons." Do you agree? If so, why do you think he omits it?

To answer your question - I disagree with his conclusion that God allows suffering for one reason - to prove that Satan's ways are wrong.

Here's the part I disagree with:

That’s the cosmic situation that God is dealing with. And we come with our question, "Why, God? Why is there so much pain and suffering?"

God replies something like this: "Not because I cannot prevent it, or do not wish to prevent it. Not because I do not care, or that I am unmoved by so much pain. I weep with you, and every second this evil world continues is agony to me. But I wait before I end it for a supremely important reason.

"I wait so that all may see what evil really means and where selfishness leads. I wait so that all can see the Devil in his true character. I wait so that all who will may come to me for salvation, salvation into the arms of a Father God who loves them with an undying love.

"If you want to know the answer to your question, ‘Why God?’ go to the Cross. There you will see me as I really am, two arms outstretched to save, bleeding and dying for all the suffering, misery and pain in the world."

Just like Jesus who wept while on this earth, God weeps. Not as a powerless being, but precisely because he has the power. His heart aches to heal this world of evil, to wipe away every tears from every eye, to be with his people and be their God, face to face.10 But because he is God, and he wants all to understand him and love him without compulsion, he waits. "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."11

Why is there evil and suffering? Because the Devil chose this way, which is the opposite of God. How can we say that God is uncaring, that he willingly allows sin and suffering? So often we or the Devil cause evil, and then all of us blame God!

We have bought into the Devil’s way, and experience the consequences of trying to go our own way. Not under the punitive hostility of God, but because choosing wrong instead of right has its own natural results. Tragically, such a viewpoint does lead to death, just as God said it would. Not as some imposed penalty by a divine dictator, but the inevitable result foreseen by a loving Creator.

Think for a moment. What is the alternative? For God to intervene in every situation? To stop the car crashing, to prevent the earthquake, to defuse the terrorist’s bomb? The result would be a world in which evil is never seen for what it truly is, for it never has its diabolical consequences. A world where God by his intervening power takes care of every problem; a world of eternal evil that can have no end.

Only as the conflict is resolved through the unmasking of evil’s real face, only as God is demonstrated to be the loving, compassionate Being he says he is, only as all his creation agrees with him that he was right all along—only then can God bring this rebellion to a close. Those who have chosen the Devil’s way will be allowed their choice of final non-existence in the end-time destruction. And then, and only then, can God create a new heaven and a new earth, a place where righteousness dwells and the goodness of God reigns supreme.12

First he says - "So often we or the Devil cause evil, and then all of us blame God! We have bought into the Devil’s way, and experience the consequences of trying to go our own way."

Then he adds - "Think for a moment. What is the alternative? For God to intervene in every situation? To stop the car crashing, to prevent the earthquake, to defuse the terrorist’s bomb? The result would be a world in which evil is never seen for what it truly is, for it never has its diabolical consequences."

His examples are inconsistent with his conclusions, especially the first two. How does crashing a car illustrate the "consequences of trying to go our own way"? How does an earthquake illustrate the "consequences of trying to go our own way"? And, why would defusing a bomb every once in awhile, to save innocent lives, prevent us from realizing that terrorism is bad?

He also says - "Those who have chosen the Devil’s way will be allowed their choice of final non-existence in the end-time destruction."

What is this supposed to mean?

It means this: "The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God."

Here's a summary of the GC:

In heaven itself this law was broken. Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving. Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world.

The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2. (DA 21,22)

The Great Controversy is over the character of Satan and God. Satan represents God as being like himself (i.e. Satan), and presents himself as being good and having the best interests of humanity at heart. Revealing Satan's character reveals His own. This point is discussed at length in the chapter "It Is Finished." The first half of the chapter deals with this, and the second half brings it up again.

Of course, dealing with Satan's character isn't all God does, or even the principal thing. Christ came, above all, to reveal the Father.

Back to the two ways. There are only two ways. One is the way of "the law of life of the universe," which is to receive from the hand of God and give of what one has received. The other way is the way of self. Revealing truth about one of these ways simultaneously reveals truth about the other.



You have a specific idea in mind when you say "law and justice," which idea I believe the author dismissed in saying, "Not as some imposed penalty by a divine dictator, but the inevitable result foreseen by a loving Creator."



I believe you're stating it differently than the author did. It's fine for you to state things in your own words, but if you do so you should keep the original meaning. I don't think you're doing that here. In particular, you state "that God allows suffering for one reason." This implies not just necessity but sufficiency. I don't believe the author was arguing for this, but I'm open to change my mind if you will produce something to substantiate your assertion here.

I infer from your response that you agree with the author's assertion that suffering exists because of Satan and that God does indeed allow it to occur in order to demonstrate that it is wrong. However, where you perceive a difference in what the author states and what you believe is that in addition to what the author states, there are other reasons to explain the existence of suffering. Have I understood you correctly?

If so, what are these other reasons?

The underlined portion is the point he's driving at. Irrespective of the examples, which I'll get to in a moment, do you agree with his point?



The author is dealing with the general principle of suffering. Suffering only exists because of the principle of "trying to go our own way." It began with Satan. Had Satan not created this principle, and human beings bought into it, there would be no car crashes nor earthquakes.



You're changing the author's words. He didn't say "every once in awhile."

MM, please be careful in preserving the meaning of others when you put them in your own words or ask questions.

What he said was, "The result would be a world in which evil is never seen for what it truly is" which implies that no result of evil is allowed to be seen. This means the author is dealing the concept of God's not allowing any consequences of evil to be seen. He's not discussing the question of "every once in awhile".

He makes it sound like their final choice consists of one option, and that once that decision is made they simply cease to exist - poof, just like that, they're gone. It isn't described that way in the sacred writings.

I agree. Both are necessary for God to win the GC.


He is not rejecting what I believe by saying, “Not as some imposed penalty by a divine dictator.” I do not believe God arbitrarily imposes penalty like a dictator. But what is he rejecting? What does he believe about the role of law and justice as a reason for why suffering exists?


What other reasons does he give for why he believes suffering exists? I didn’t read any other reason he gave in his article that answers the question he was addressing. He says, “Why is there evil and suffering? Because the Devil chose this way, which is the opposite of God.” What other answer did he give?

Then he asks, “How can we say that God is uncaring, that he willingly allows sin and suffering?” Here he seems to imply God does not willingly allow sin and suffering, that He grudgingly goes along with it. What choice did God have?

Next he wrote, “So often we or the Devil cause evil, and then all of us blame God!” Does God just stand around and watch while we or the Devil cause evil? Doesn’t He have to allow it? Are we or the Devil really that free to go around at will and cause evil whenever and however we please? Are there not 4 angels holding back the 4 winds of human passion? Listen:

GC 614
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old. {GC 614.1}

The author follows up by saying, “We have bought into the Devil’s way, and experience the consequences of trying to go our own way. Not under the punitive hostility of God, but because choosing wrong instead of right has its own natural results.” Here he seems to be saying that the consequences of evil choices are fixed by natural law, which implies neither God, nor Satan, has any say so. But I hear you saying Satan controls the outcome of evil choices. Did I misunderstand your view? He also implies God never causes suffering, that it is always the result of natural law. Earlier he implied God didn't cause the Flood.


Actually, I hear him saying suffering exists because evil choices follow fixed laws, that the Devil merely got the ball rolling. Nevertheless, I agree with what you wrote, namely, that there are times when God gives evil angels permission to inflict people with suffering. But this doesn’t explain all the reasons why suffering exists. Sometimes God causes it Himself. Other times He commands holy angels to cause suffering. Listen:

GC 614
A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC 614.2}

The GC 614 quote I posted above makes it clear that God manages the outcome of evil choices so that they do not exceed the limits He allows. The natural consequence of sinning is death not years of suffering. The plan of salvation prevents sinners from experiencing the real consequences of sinning.

In fact, it is indirectly responsible for sinners suffering rather than dying right away. "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." {1SM 230.1}

So, no, we haven’t seen evil for what it truly is. But we will when God commands the holy angels to cease holding in check the fierce passions of men and angels. The results we see now are regulated by God. They're not what they would be were it not for God's intervention. In this sense the results are, as it were, artificial. The real, unregulated results would be far different.


The Devil hasn’t created a thing in his lifetime. He can only pervert what God has created, and he is not at liberty to cause suffering, instead, he can only do what God permits within the limits and constraints established by God. Yes, sinners are at liberty to manage their own choices, but God is not obligated to sit back and do nothing, to standby and watch natural law run its course. No way! God is at liberty to intervene and regulate the outcome of evil choices in a way that best serves a positive outcome of the GC.

We get this straight from Job, don't we? Well, I don't think you stated it accurately. God sets a hedge around people so that Satan doesn't go beyond what God allows.



Does this have something to do with a disagreement with the author?



The cross revealed evil for what it truly is. Nothing will reveal it more clearly than that. The chapter "It Is Finished" goes into this.

The cross is what most fully reveals good and evil, God and Satan.





The Devil is the author of sin and all its results. "Author" = "creator". Where do you think the principle of selfishness came from if not the Devil?

The last part of what you wrote looked like a red herring. That is, arguing against something that no one is asserting, least of all the author. If you would quote something from the author (a few sentences would be good, not a whole bunch of paragraphs) and explain why you disagree with the author's thought that you quoted, I think that would be an excellent way of proceeding.

TE: God sets a hedge around people so that Satan doesn't go beyond what God allows.

MM: You mean like a filter which allows certain things through? I'm trying to visualize this concept. How does God ensure evil angels do not victimize people beyond His limits? Do holy angels physically restrain evil angels thereby preventing people from being victimized beyond the boundaries God established? How does this work in practical terms? Do you know of an analogy that helps explain it?

...

TE: The cross revealed evil for what it truly is. Nothing will reveal it more clearly than that. The chapter "It Is Finished" goes into this. The cross is what most fully reveals good and evil, God and Satan.

MM: How does this explain why suffering exists? The author isn't explaining why people suffer during the second death experience. He said the reason God does not intervene to prevent the natural consequences of evil choices is because it would prevent people from seeing what evil truly is. There is nothing natural about probationary time. A&E should have died in the day they sinned. That they didn't is totally unnatural.

Well, you and I both believe the artificial conditions that were created when God implemented the plan of salvation altered the cause and effect relationship between evil choices and natural law. God leaves nothing to chance or choice. If He did, the GC would have ended in failure before the Flood. In fact, the Flood made it possible for the GC to continue, otherwise, the entire human race would have rejected God. The same can be said of the Tower of Babel.

...

TE: If you would quote something from the author (a few sentences would be good, not a whole bunch of paragraphs) and explain why you disagree with the author's thought that you quoted, I think that would be an excellent way of proceeding.

MM: I did this already. See posts #102905 and 102908 above.

Consider the book of Job. I don't think I can improve upon that.



I said The cross revealed evil for what it truly is.



Neither was I. I said, "The cross revealed evil for what it truly is."



I don't see the connection here between what you're saying and what I said.



I wouldn't put it exactly like this, but I agree with the basic idea you're expressing here.



It depends upon what you mean by this. This could be true taken one way and false another. Certainly "leaving things to chance" projects a negative idea. However, God certainly permits random things to happen.



If your point here is that God takes actions to enable the GC to be fought, I agree with this. If God allowed Satan to destroy everybody, for example, then no one would be left to make decisions regarding the GC.



"Those who have chosen the Devil’s way will be allowed their choice of final non-existence in the end-time destruction."



Ok, thanks. I'll comment on the first one here. The other post is longer, so I'll respond in a separate post.



What he wrote squares with what Ellen White wrote, as far as I can tell. It looks like he's basically just paraphrasing things Ellen White wrote. If one is familiar with Ellen White's writings, it's pretty easy to see where he got the ideas he's sharing from. For example, GC 543 and DA 764. Their exclusion from heaven is "voluntary with themselves." From DA 764, "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 sounds to me very similar to what the author is saying.

He is rejecting the idea that "law and justice" is arbitrary. What "arbitrary" means here is not "whimsical" or "capricious," but something that God causes to happen that only happens because of His action, with no intrinsic or inherent reason for its happening. So when he says "Not as some imposed penalty by a divine dictator" he means not as something applied arbitrarily but due to a natural consequence of the choice made.

In other words, when one chooses to live selfishly, to sin, one chooses death, because sin and death are inseparable. Here's how Waggoner puts it:



Sin and death are inseparable. Death is to sin what the oak tree is to the acorn. One could say that sin leads to death because of law and justice in the same sense that one can say that the acorn becomes an oak because of law and justice.

If one considers how evil came into being, this answer is exactly correct. It's because this is what the Devil chose. There's no need to say more than this. But you need to consider the context of statements that are made MM! You can't fairly take what an author writes in one place, in a given context, and then make it say something different, without regard to the intent of the author and the context in which he is writing.



I agree with this. God is not a sadist. He certainly takes no pleasure in our suffering.



God's choices were to either grudgingly allow suffering, or to allow Satan and his followers to immediately reap the full of their sin. Had God chosen the latter, it would have allowed a seed of doubt to come about as evil seed to produce deadly fruit later on. God chose to allow the principles of Satan's government to be developed so the truth could be seen.



Boy, this is the truth!



We are very free. Pretty much any evil you can think of doing you can do. I'm sure there are some exceptions to this, but percentage-wise I'm sure that well over 99% of the evil you could purpose to do, you could do.



How does this tie into what the author is saying?



This last doesn't follow. That is, "the consequences of evil choices are fixed by natural law" does not imply "neither God, nor Satan, has any say so." This assertion is wrong.



Yes, you've misunderstood. I've never said this. Satan inspires, or tempts, people to make evil choices, and evil results follow. Also Satan invented the principle of selfishness, and when people buy into this principle, bad results follow. This is what I've said.



What?? No, he never said anything like this. You're just reading this into what he said. You're way off base here.



Ok, this is an interesting line of thought. The author hasn't addressed this. It would be interesting to know how he would answer your question here. I really have no idea how he would.

At any rate, regardless of how he would address your line of thought here (which would, again, be an interesting question to put to him) the basic point would remain, which is that suffering exists because of a principle the Devil invented, and it continues to exist because it is necessary for this principle to be worked out. Wouldn't this would be true even if God were responsible for causing the flood or other events that you see Him as responsible for?

In the book of Job it seems as if the evil angels simply obeyed God and didn't attempt to do anything more or less than God ordained. Is that it works? Are evil angels always so obedient?


Yes, that's what you said, but how does this explain why suffering exists?


I'm glad we agree. I probably learned it studying with you.


How do you know what is random? Are you sure God wasn't involved somehow? Does anything happen that God doesn't cause, command, or consent?


Are you sure Satan would destroy everybody? What makes you think he would? How would it serve his purpose?


It looks likes he is omitting the role of justice and judgment, penalty and punishment. What about Ellen's description of sinners suffering in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness in the punishing fires and flames?

I'm not getting these questions. What do you base your conclusion on? What's the point of these questions. Especially the last one, which seems a rather absurd question to ask. But you must have some reason for asking it. Evil angels "obedient". Really, now.



I was responding to your comment that we haven't seen evil as it really is.



The fact that God consents to something happening does not mean it is not random. Also that some things are random doesn't imply everything is. I'm not suggesting that.



If everyone were destroyed, then God's purpose viz a viz the human race could not be obtained.



I wouldn't say that he's omitting the role that you mentioned, but that he would see it as incorporated in the principles he laid out. He was rejecting the view of an arbitrarily laid out system, which is how he would likely view your perspective of things.

Regarding the duration of sinners suffering in proportion to their sinfulness, that is just a guess, since he wasn't discussing this in what he wrote, but my guess is that his view would be similar to mine, that people suffering in proportion to their sinfulness not because of an arbitrary action on the part of God to make them suffer (like burning them) but because their guilt and their conscience cause this to happen when truth is revealed. Actually I should credit Ty Gibson for this idea, since I probably got it from him, and he explains it better than anyone else I know of.

But, again, this is just a guess since the author didn't comment on this.

Why would anything God does be labeled arbitrary, regardless of which definition is used? Everything in the OT that God caused, commanded, or consented to fall under the definition you gave. For example, there is nothing natural about capital punishment in the cases where God commanded Moses to stone people to death. Death was certainly imposed, right?


This is true of the second death scenario, but it is not true of the first death scenario. The implementation of the plan of salvation created an artificial, unnatural environment in which sinners do not die in the same day they sin. A long, lingering life of sin resulting in “sleep” is totally artificial, totally unnatural. Sinners, both men and angels, are kept alive synthetically by the power of God.

What gives God the right to violate the law in this way? How does He justify upsetting the natural order of things? Is it because God is God and He can do whatever He wants to do? This doesn’t make sense to me. Instead of making something happen He is making something not happen, which is “arbitrary” according to your preferred the definition.

God is obligated to obey the law. He has promised to rule free moral agents in harmony with the precepts and principles of His law. He is obligated to keep His promise. He cannot disregard the law to serve a purpose disallowed by the law. Law and justice require God to punish and destroy sinners in the same day they sin. “By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” {6BC 1095.4}

Ellen explains what God did to save sinners and to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. Because He has bound Himself to uphold law and justice, God had to justify giving sinners probationary time instead of punishing and destroying them in the same day they sinned. It has as much to do about preserving the integrity of the law as it does about saving sinners. Saving the law is as important as saving lawbreakers. Here’s what she wrote about it:

Here's what the author said:



This is dealing with death as the consequence of sin, with what occurs in the final judgment. "Arbitrary" is a fine word to use in this context, and is the word Ellen White herself used in DA 764.



The context of the author's comments is the second death.

I think what helps in understanding what Christ's death accomplished is to consider what the problem was. Here is a description of it:



Continuing on, she describes the solution:



She also deals with this theme here:



A quote you mentioned recently fits in well here:



The only way man could keep the law, which is equivalent to saying the only way man could be brought back into harmony with God, which is equivalent to saying the only way man could be reconciled to God, is by belief in the propitiation. Thus Christ's sacrifice was necessary in order to unite God and man. Here's how Peter puts it:



Now in the ST quote, EGW describes Christ's work of revealing God as the "whole purpose" of His ministry. Since this is the "whole purpose" of it, whatever law an justice required is encapsulated in that. There can't be some other, additional requirement that is not included in what is called the "whole purpose" of Christ's ministry, as in this case it wouldn't be the "whole purpose" but a partial purpose.

That it should be the whole purpose makes perfect sense. After all, the problem is that man and God had been separated by sin. So if God provides a way by which He and man can be reconciled, then the problem is solved.



To comment on this a bit, how are the captives of the great deceiver taken from him? By force? No, by the revelation of truth. This fits into her idea expressed in ST 1/20/90 that the whole purpose of Christ's ministry was the revelation of God, in order to set men right. Note that the deceive obtained his captives by way of a lie against God. Therefore the way the captives were won back was by way of revealing the truth about God.

Are you saying the author argues God allows suffering for one reason – Because this is what the Devil chose?


God grudgingly permits Satan to cause suffering to demonstrate that the way of evil is wrong. Does this idea account for all the suffering that has happened since the fall of our First Parents? Is this the one and only reason why suffering exists? What about the millions who suffered and died in the Flood? What about the fiery death and destruction of the inhabitants of Sodom? What about the ten plagues that caused widespread suffering and death in Egypt?


1. What gives God the right to intervene and prevent evil outcomes in 1% of the cases you alluded to?

2. Why doesn’t He exercise this right in more cases?

3. What are the factors He weighs in deciding when to intervene and when not to intervene in the outcome of evil choices?

4. And, what would He say to comfort the mother whose daughter was abused because God chose not to intervene?


It speaks to why suffering plays out the way it does. Sinners are not left alone to choose and do as they please. Angelic forces exert an influence which holds sinners in check. Their actions and influence regulate, to a great degree, both the choices sinners make and how those choices play out.

Suffering exists in the form we see and observe due in part because of what the angels allow and allow not. Nothing is left to choice or chance. Everything is managed and regulated so that evil choices play out according to God’s goals in allowing the GC to happen in the first place. God has a plan and a purpose in letting the GC play out. There is nothing natural or accidental about how it is playing out.


Sure it does. Unless you believe God is breaks the law and allows Satan to do the same thing. If the consequences of evil choices do not follow fixed laws, what, then, is the truth? Are they up to Satan to decide? Does he randomly, arbitrarily decide how each evil choice will play out? If not, what, then, determines how evil choices play out?


How can Satan invent something is inevitable? Sin is the transgression of the law. Satan didn’t invent it. It is true whether someone sins or not. The potential and possibility of sin was “invented” when God created free moral agents.

Also, the story of Job does not reflect the idea that suffering only follows evil choices. Sometimes suffering exists because God regulates what Satan can do to innocent people in order to demonstrate to the onlooking the nature or quality of their loyalty and obedience to God.


No I’m not. Here’s what he said – “A third response is that experiencing suffering builds character. That may be partially true in a limited scenario, as a learning experience. And we do need to learn from suffering. But it does not resolve the larger questions—how much do babies drowned in the tsunami (or the Flood) actually learn? How were their characters built? While survivors may learn, what of the victims of suffering who do not?

“Most responses are variations or combinations of the above. While there may be elements of truth, they are generally unsatisfying, because the fundamental question remains unanswered. If God is truly good, why does he not stop the suffering?”

He implies that babies drowning in the Flood did not serve to build their character; therefore, it was not one of those situations where suffering serves a noble purpose, where the end justifies the means. His logic implies - God wouldn’t do something that caused babies to drown because it serves no higher purpose. This logic leads me to think the author believes God didn’t cause the Flood.

But in cases where suffering leads people to love and serve God more faithfully, then I am convinced God, either directly or indirectly, causes it to happen. It seems wrong to blame Satan for, or to divorce God from, something specifically calculated to produce righteous results. Nor does it seem right to credit natural law.


God causes, commands, or consents to suffering for different reasons. Do all these reasons boil down to one? I don’t think so. One reason why God causes suffering and death is to execute justice and judgment. Another reason is to build character. A third reason is to make it clear to the onlooking universe that the consequences of disobeying the law are unfavorable. The one common denominator is suffering, but the reasons why God permits it are different.

The following passages explain why God, in some cases, designs, fashions, sends, inflicts, appoints, and ordains suffering:

Every trial permitted is designed to exalt the truth to a higher appreciation, that praise to God alone shall be upon the lips of the true disciple of Christ. {UL 324.5}

The trials to which Christians are subjected in sorrow, adversity, and reproach are the means appointed of God to separate the chaff from the wheat. Our pride, selfishness, evil passions, and love of worldly pleasure must all be overcome; therefore God sends us afflictions to test and prove us, and show us that these evils exist in our characters. . . Afflictions, crosses, temptations, adversity, and our varied trials are God's workmen to refine us, sanctify us, and fit us for the heavenly garner. {AG 89.2}

Many of your afflictions have been visited upon you, in the wisdom of God, to bring you closer to the throne of grace. He softens and subdues His children by sorrows and trials. This world is God's workshop, where He fashions us for the courts of heaven. He uses the planing knife upon our quivering hearts until the roughness and irregularities are removed and we are fitted for our proper places in the heavenly building. Through tribulation and distress the Christian becomes purified and strengthened, and develops a character after the model that Christ has given. {AG 89.3}

[Trials and afflictions] are God's workmen, ordained for the perfection of character. However great the deprivation and suffering of the Christian, however dark and inscrutable may seem the way of providence, he is to rejoice in the Lord, knowing that all is working for his good. {LHU 248.2}

Whatever comes to him comes from the Saviour, who surrounds him with His presence. Nothing can touch him except by the Lord's permission. All our sufferings and sorrows, all our temptations and trials, all our sadness and griefs, all our persecutions and privations, in short, all things work together for our good. All experiences and circumstances are God's workmen whereby good is brought to us. {MH 488.4}

MM, this is speaking to the idea as to why God allows these things to come to pass. James deals with the same point here:



James says we should rejoice in temptations. Why? Because they develop character.

So God allows us to pass through temptations, or trials, in order that our character may be developed, but that doesn't mean that God is the author of these things that come upon us. Indeed, James makes it clear He is not.

James did not say anything like it. He said God does not tempt us with "evil". Which is true. Ellen also differs with your view. She used words like "designs, fashions, sends, inflicts, appoints, and ordains". God designs, appoints, ordains, and then sends suffering to help people build solid traits of character for eternity. Please reread the quotes posted above. It's too plain to misunderstand or to misapply.

Tom, please respond to post #102997 above on this thread. Thank you.

No.



Yes. If it weren't for Satan, none of this suffering would exist.



None of the suffering caused here would exist either.



He says the babies died in the Flood, so the purpose of the Flood could not have been to teach them anything. This is actually pretty obvious.



No it doesn't.



It shouldn't.



Thank you for clarifying your position. I would have wished you had said this straight off.

According to Ellen White, Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Do you agree with this? If so, how do you reconcile this statement with your ideas?



Permitting suffering is one thing. Causing it is another. Again, we are told that Satan is the author of sin and all its results. This looks to contradict what you're suggesting.

Actually, who is responsible for these things I think is a key battle in the Great Controversy. I believe God is innocent, and that much of Jesus Christ's mission was to establish this fact, which He did.

Suffering exists in spite of God, not because of God.

Tom, suffering and death would not exist 1) if Satan had not rebelled in heaven, 2) if Satan had not deceived Eve, 3) if Adam had not resolved to share Eve's fate, and 4) if God had not implemented the plan of salvation.

In what sense is Satan "the author of sin and all its results"? Does it mean he makes people sin and then arbitrarily decides how their sins will play out? Or, does it mean sin and suffering exist because Satan deceived Eve? Listen:

It is not in the power of all the host of Satan to force the tempted to transgress. There is no excuse for sin. {4T 623.2}

The tempter can never compel us to do evil. He cannot control minds unless they are yielded to his control. The will must consent, faith must let go its hold upon Christ, before Satan can exercise his power upon us. {DA 125.2}

No man without his own consent can be overcome by Satan. The tempter has no power to control the will or to force the soul to sin. He may distress, but he cannot contaminate. He can cause agony, but not defilement. {GC 510.3}


Is this the only reason suffering exists? Can all cases of suffering be explained this way? In other words, does this mean God never directly causes suffering Himself to punish sinners for their transgressions?

For example, the Flood - why did the Flood happen? Did God manipulate the forces of nature to cause the Flood? Or, did He withdraw His protection and allow the pent up forces of nature to naturally implode upon itself thus killing sinners in the process?

In the sense that Satan created sin, so is responsible for its existence and all the evil that has come as a result.



??? There's nothing in what you are responding to that "this" could correspond to. The statement, "Suffering exists in spite of God" is not a reason for the existence of suffering.

Regarding the Flood, all the Flood models I've seen have the waters beneath under great pressure, which pressure forced the waters into the atmosphere, where it caused the Flood to occur. This agrees with Scripture, which speaks of the waters of the great depths bursting forth, and with the SOP which speaks of the great amount of water underneath the earth's crust. So given that the waters were under great pressure, it looks like that is what caused the flood. God may have been preventing the waters from erupting until the flood occurred, or He could have simply known the earth's crust was about to give way, and inspired Noah to warn people of that.

But what does this have to do with anything?

Is committing sin the same thing as creating it? If Satan is responsible for all the sins committed by sinners, why, then, are sinners judged, condemned, punished, and destroyed for the sins they commit?


Your comment implies God does not cause suffering. Is this what you believe?


If God allowed the pent up forces of nature to flood the world, killing thousands of infants, by ceasing to hold them back - why does Ellen say God employs nature to cause destruction, instead of God stopped holding back the pent up forces of nature? Listen as she describes various scenes of destruction:

God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.--PC 136 (1894). {LDE 242.3}

The destruction that befell the northern kingdom was a direct judgment from Heaven. The Assyrians were merely the instruments that God used to carry out His purpose. {PK 291.3}

The depths of the earth are the Lord's arsenal, whence were drawn weapons to be employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters gushing from the earth united with the waters from heaven to accomplish the work of desolation. Since the Flood, fire as well as water has been God's agent to destroy very wicked cities. These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. As men have beheld burning mountains pouring forth fire and flames and torrents of melted ore, drying up rivers, overwhelming populous cities, and everywhere spreading ruin and desolation, the stoutest heart has been filled with terror and infidels and blasphemers have been constrained to acknowledge the infinite power of God. {PP 109.1}

The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth, and united with the waters from Heaven, to accomplish the work of destruction. Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {3SG 82.2}

In the day of the Lord, just before the coming of Christ, God will send lightnings from Heaven in his wrath, which will unite with fire in the earth. The mountains will burn like a furnace, and will pour forth terrible streams of lava, destroying gardens and fields, villages and cities; and as they pour their melted ore, rocks and heated mud into the rivers, will cause them to boil like a pot, and send forth massive rocks and scatter their broken fragments upon the land with indescribable violence. Whole rivers will be dried up. The earth will be convulsed, and there will be dreadful eruptions and earthquakes everywhere. God will plague the wicked inhabitants of the earth until they are destroyed from off it. {3SG 82.3}

Those majestic trees which God had caused to grow upon the earth, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the old world, and which they had used to form into idols, and to corrupt themselves with, God has reserved in the earth, in the shape of coal and oil to use as agencies in their final destruction. As he called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the flood, as weapons from his arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years he will call forth the fires in the earth as his weapons which he has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the flood. {3SG 87.1}

Tom, suffering and death would not exist 1) if Satan had not rebelled in heaven, 2) if Satan had not deceived Eve, 3) if Adam had not resolved to share Eve's fate, and 4) if God had not implemented the plan of salvation.

Do you agree?

No, not quite. If Satan had rebelled, but not humans, there would have been suffering, but not for human beings, except in an empathetic way, assuming they didn't sin. If Adam had not resolved to share Eve's fate, he still would have suffered, because he loved her. It would certainly have limited tremendously the suffering of the rest of humanity, however. If God had not implemented the plan of salvation, there would have been suffering and death for Adam and Eve, but no other humans, since that would have been the end of the human race.

No. Satan did both, but others, after him, continue to sin, but do not create it, so creating it and committing it are different things.



Satan has a shared responsibility.



My statement "suffering exists in spite of God" implies that God is working to end suffering. That was the intent of my statement, and what I believe.

God does nothing bad, but if a person is sick, the process of healing can cause suffering, so I don't preclude that. He doesn't arbitrarily cause suffering, to punish someone, for example. He could withdraw His protection, and that could result in suffering.



Why does Scripture say that God killed Saul? Or that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites? Or that God caused David to number Israel? Or that God was responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem?

God often presents Himself as doing that which He permits. There are many examples of this.

Regarding the flood, I assume you followed the logic that the waters which flew into the atmosphere must have been under pressure. Do you disagree that this is what happened? It seems to agree with:

1)The models Creation scientists have put together
2)What the Scripture says
3)What the SOP says

Do see a difference between the suffering you described above and the suffering I described? The reason I ask is because your response to my post makes me wonder if you think all suffering is the same. If you feel the types of suffering we are talking about above are worlds apart, then please help me understand how your response addresses what I posted. Thank you.

The possibility of sin and sinning existed before Lucifer sinned. So, he couldn't have created sin if the possibility existed before he sinned.


Not in the sins of the unsaved. That is, he will be punished for the sins committed by the unsaved.


"He could withdraw His protection, and that could result in suffering." Can people experience suffering while God is protecting them?

What is He protecting them from?

Are there other reasons why people experience suffering, reasons unrelated to what God does or does not do?


When a murderer uses a gun to kill someone, do we conclude the gun is what murdered the person? Or, do we conclude the guy who pulled the trigger is the one killed the person? In the same way, when God uses a "weapon" to punish and kill sinners, we must conclude God is the one killed them. God's weapons are many and varied. Listen:

God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.--PC 136 (1894). {LDE 242.3}

The destruction that befell the northern kingdom was a direct judgment from Heaven. The Assyrians were merely the instruments that God used to carry out His purpose. {PK 291.3}

The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth, and united with the waters from Heaven, to accomplish the work of destruction. Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {3SG 82.2}


Before the Flood, the forces of nature above and below the earth were the same as before A&E sinned. Eating the forbidden fruit did not in the least alter the forces of nature. True, Satan has permission to pervert nature, but he cannot exceed the limits and restrictions established by God. I do not believe the forces involved in the Flood were being unnaturally held in check by God - as if what happened during the Flood would have happened naturally the moment A&E sinned. Instead, I believe God employed the forces of nature to accomplish what happened during the Flood.

No, I wasn't addressing that. What you wrote wasn't precise, which is what I was addressing. It could be all the points I made were moot, and that you're being more precise would answer each objection I made, but it's also possible there was something more substantive involved, which is why I brought up the points. You would have to decide if you thought there was something meaningfully different.

This doesn't make sense. The possibility of a light bulb existed before Edison, but that doesn't mean he didn't create it. The possibility of the theory of relativity existed before Einstein, but that doesn't mean he didn't create it. The possibility of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony existed before Beethoven, but that doesn't mean he didn't create that.

The Spirit of Prophecy tells us that Satan is the "author of sin." What does "author" mean? It means it's his creation. What do you think "author" means, if not this?



The wicked are also punished for these sins. That's why it's a shared responsibility.



Sure. Job shows this.



According to the SOP, there are thousands of things.



This seems very vague. People suffer from indigestion. That seems unrelated to something God does. Does this address your question?

Regarding your question of the gun, it is the intent of the purpose that decides. It's good that you're bringing this up, as it is 180% opposed to your previous argument regarding God's not bearing responsibility because bullets don't have rights.

So what is God's intention? God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to a knowledge of the truth. He would have all men repent. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Yet, in spite of this, sometimes God's wishes are not respected, and His will is opposed. People tragically resist the Holy Spirit, and God will eventually give them up.



No way! Sin introduced tremendous changes!



This is paraphrasing Romans 8:22





My word, what an assertion! It changed all sorts of things. Just to mention one, before sin do you think lions were carnivorous?



Your sidestepping the argument here. I demonstrated from three different sources that the waters which caused the flood came from below the earth's crust. They have been under tremendous pressure to have caused the water to go from beneath the earth to up in the atmosphere. Do you disagree with this?

At any rate, our differences are caused not by the evidence, but by our views of God's character. You see God as acting in certain ways, so interpret things to correspond to your view of God. I plead guilty to doing the same thing. What causes our differences is how we perceive God to be.

In other words, suffering and death, as we know it, exist because 1) Adam resolved to share Eve's fate, and 2) God implemented the plan of salvation. So, not all suffering and death occur because of sin and Satan. Sometimes it happens because of the plan of salvation. That is, sometimes God uses His "workmen" (i.e. trials and tribulation) to polish people. Even Jesus endured this polishing process. Such polishing causes suffering. Sometimes it ends in death. Listen:

The trials of life are God’s workmen, to remove the impurities and roughness from our character. Their hewing, squaring, and chiseling, their burnishing and polishing, is a painful process; it is hard to be pressed down to the grinding wheel. But the stone is brought forth prepared to fill its place in the heavenly temple. Upon no useless material does the Master bestow such careful, thorough work. Only His precious stones are polished after the similitude of a palace. (MB 10)

It is through much tribulation that we are to enter the kingdom of God. Our Saviour was tried in every possible way, and yet He triumphed in God continually. It is our privilege to be strong in the strength of God under all circumstances and to glory in the cross of Christ. (AG 90)

They are prepared to be used in every emergency, to fill important positions of trust, and to accomplish the grand purposes for which their powers were given them. God takes men upon trial; He proves them on the right hand and on the left, and thus they are educated, trained, disciplined. Jesus, our Redeemer, man’s representative and head, endured this testing process. (4T 86)

Yes, God uses suffering, and other evils, to be a blessing in the working out of trials, to develop empathy for others, and so forth. But the fact that God uses evils for good, does not make Him responsible for the evils He uses.



A couple of points here. First of all, Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Is suffering and death the result of sin? Yes, it is. So who is responsible? Satan, the author of sin and all its results.

Now if there were any question as to whether suffering is the result of sin, this is also addressed: "It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law ..."

All suffering results from sin. Who is the author of sin? Satan. So, once again, we see that Satan is responsible for all suffering, since he is responsible for sin, and all suffering is the result of sin.

Now Satan isn't the only one who sins, so while he is indirectly responsible for all suffering, those who sin are responsible for suffering as well. However, since God does not sin, and "all suffering" is the result of sin, God is responsible for none of it.

Ellen explains what she means: “. . . Satan, the prince of evil, the author of sin, the first transgressor of God's holy law.” {GC x.1}


Only Satan suffers and dies for the sins of the saved. He does not suffer and die for the sins of the unsaved. They will suffer and die for their own sins. True, Satan will suffer and die for tempting the unsaved to sin, but that is not the same thing as suffering and dying for the sins they committed. He will suffer and die with 1) the sins he tempted the saved to commit, and 2) the sins they committed.


People suffer while God is protecting them? What good then is His protection? And, how does one differentiate between suffering with God’s protection and suffering without His protection?


Thousands of “arbitrary” (using your definition) things? Or, thousands of cause and effect things?


So, indigestion is an example of suffering unrelated to what God does or does not do. Are there times when God intervenes and prevents indigestion? Or, does He always, under all circumstances, “allow” it to happen? In other words, people experience indigestion because God chooses not to intervene. He chose to allow them to experience the natural cause and effect consequences. Either way, God must choose, and people experience the results of His choice. Thus, nothing is entirely the result of natural consequences. Everything depends on what God does or does not do.


Bullets do not have rights. God can intervene and prevent bullets from killing people. People have rights; therefore, God cannot force them to not want to kill someone. He can, however, intervene and prevent them from killing people. For example, God can stop keeping them alive before they pull the trigger. The point is – God leaves nothing to choice or chance. He is intimately involved in everything that happens and does not happen.


Listen:

In the days of Noah a double curse was resting upon the earth in consequence of Adam's transgression and of the murder committed by Cain. Yet this had not greatly changed the face of nature. There were evident tokens of decay, but the earth was still rich and beautiful in the gifts of God's providence. {PP 90.1}

The point is - Eating the forbidden fruit did not radically change nature. The Flood is what radically changed nature. The question is - Who or what caused the Flood?


Lions were not carnivorous before sin. But neither was man. Long, sharp canine teeth evolved over a period of time. But the forces of nature I’m referring to did not change when man sinned. That is, fire and water did not suddenly become pressurized and dangerous. Eating the forbidden fruit did not directly cause any changes to nature itself. There is absolutely no direct connection between this sin and the forces of nature employed in the Flood. True, it is because of sin that God employed the forces of nature to destroy the world and her inhabitants with water.

True, God gives Satan permission to pervert nature, but only within the limits and restrictions He establishes. Satan cannot do anything to man or nature without God's permission. Nor does God allow the Devil to do something which He must then work to counteract to prevent destruction from occurring. For example, God did not allow Satan to pressurize water only to turn around and have to work to prevent it from gushing out and killing people.


I do not believe the water was under pressure before A&E ate the forbidden fruit. Nor do I believe it became pressurized because they ate the forbidden fruit. I have no way of knowing if the water was pressurized. Neither do you. We know why the Flood happened, but not how. It happened because God made it happen. How the water gushed from above and below the earth has not been explained.


We both agree God has employed nature, angels, and humans to carry out His purposes. For example:

God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored. {LDE 242.3}

The destruction that befell the northern kingdom was a direct judgment from Heaven. The Assyrians were merely the instruments that God used to carry out His purpose. {PK 291.3}

The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {3SG 82.2}

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC 614.2}

Not true. There are times when God Himself inflicts punishment and death. Listen:

God delights in mercy, and He manifests His compassion before He inflicts His judgments. He teaches Israel to spare the people of Edom, before requiring them to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan. {PP 423.2}

God will bring you over the ground again and again until with humble heart and subdued mind you bear the test that He inflicts and are wholly sanctified to His service and work. {4T 214.1}

Not all suffering is the result of sin. Sometimes God causes or permits suffering to serve a higher purpose. The Devil does not cooperate with God in this endeavor. Nor does God depend on the Devil to cause suffering so that He can lead people to higher places.

1.All suffering results from sin.
2.God does not sin.
3.Therefore God does not cause suffering.

Which of 1, 2, or 3 are you saying is not true?

Ok, it looks like you are saying 1 (that all suffering results from sin) is not true. This comes from the following:



I underlined this for you. It's from the DA 471 quote. Now you will agree that sin is the transgression of God's law, right? Then it follows that all suffering results from sin.

Case in point - Job. His losses and suffering were not the result of any sinning he was guilty of doing.

Ellen explains what she means: “. . . Satan, the prince of evil, the author of sin, the first transgressor of God's holy law.” {GC x.1}


Only Satan suffers and dies for the sins of the saved. He does not suffer and die for the sins of the unsaved. They will suffer and die for their own sins. True, Satan will suffer and die for tempting the unsaved to sin, but that is not the same thing as suffering and dying for the sins they committed. He will suffer and die with 1) the sins he tempted the saved to commit, and 2) the sins they committed.


People suffer while God is protecting them? What good then is His protection? And, how does one differentiate between suffering with God’s protection and suffering without His protection?


Thousands of “arbitrary” (using your definition) things? Or, thousands of cause and effect things?


So, indigestion is an example of suffering unrelated to what God does or does not do. Are there times when God intervenes and prevents indigestion? Or, does He always, under all circumstances, “allow” it to happen? In other words, people experience indigestion because God chooses not to intervene. He chose to allow them to experience the natural cause and effect consequences. Either way, God must choose, and people experience the results of His choice. Thus, nothing is entirely the result of natural consequences. Everything depends on what God does or does not do.


Bullets do not have rights. God can intervene and prevent bullets from killing people. People have rights; therefore, God cannot force them to not want to kill someone. He can, however, intervene and prevent them from killing people. For example, God can stop keeping them alive before they pull the trigger. The point is – God leaves nothing to choice or chance. He is intimately involved in everything that happens and does not happen.


Listen:

In the days of Noah a double curse was resting upon the earth in consequence of Adam's transgression and of the murder committed by Cain. Yet this had not greatly changed the face of nature. There were evident tokens of decay, but the earth was still rich and beautiful in the gifts of God's providence. {PP 90.1}

The point is - Eating the forbidden fruit did not radically change nature. The Flood is what radically changed nature. The question is - Who or what caused the Flood?


Lions were not carnivorous before sin. But neither was man. Long, sharp canine teeth evolved over a period of time. But the forces of nature I’m referring to did not change when man sinned. That is, fire and water did not suddenly become pressurized and dangerous. Eating the forbidden fruit did not directly cause any changes to nature itself. There is absolutely no direct connection between this sin and the forces of nature employed in the Flood. True, it is because of sin that God employed the forces of nature to destroy the world and her inhabitants with water.

True, God gives Satan permission to pervert nature, but only within the limits and restrictions He establishes. Satan cannot do anything to man or nature without God's permission. Nor does God allow the Devil to do something which He must then work to counteract to prevent destruction from occurring. For example, God did not allow Satan to pressurize water only to turn around and have to work to prevent it from gushing out and killing people.


I do not believe the water was under pressure before A&E ate the forbidden fruit. Nor do I believe it became pressurized because they ate the forbidden fruit. I have no way of knowing if the water was pressurized. Neither do you. We know why the Flood happened, but not how. It happened because God made it happen. How the water gushed from above and below the earth has not been explained.


We both agree God has employed nature, angels, and humans to carry out His purposes. For example:

God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored. {LDE 242.3}

The destruction that befell the northern kingdom was a direct judgment from Heaven. The Assyrians were merely the instruments that God used to carry out His purpose. {PK 291.3}

The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {3SG 82.2}

A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC 614.2}

Yes, I pointed this out. I said that while all our suffering is due to wrongdoing, much of it is indirect (i.e., not due to our own wrongdoing).

Anyway, back to my question, since sin is the transgression of the law, and all suffering comes as a result of transgression of the law, it follows that all suffering is the result of sin, right?

These are just titles for Satan. Satan:
1.the prince of evil
2.the author of sin
3.the first transgressor of God's holy law

She's not saying "the prince of evil" means "the author of sin."

I'm sure you know what "author" means. An author is someone who creates a work. It means more than simply being the first one to do something. Furthermore, she writes that Satan is the "author of sin and all its results." Therefore he is responsible for sin and all its results.



You should be careful how you phrase this! *Christ" suffered and died for the sins of the saved, not Satan! Your language has a definite expiatory sense to it, and Satan's suffering and death doesn't have this aspect to it.



Satan suffers for his responsibility for both the saved and the unsaved.



There's nothing arbitrary about this. God does not split Satan's responsibility up into saved and unsaved, and only put one type of responsibility upon him. Indeed, it's not something put upon him at all, as if a burden were being put on him. Satan simply has this responsibility by virtue of what he has done.

More later.

Yes. Job shows this. I just said that!



You're saying God's protection is worthless unless it prevents us from suffering?



Here's something Peter says which may help:





Sounds like Calvin. God determines who is saved and who is lost. This would be consistent with your argument.



Two points. First of all, the second assertion you write is true, but is in no way dependent upon the first. That is, given that there are things which God leaves to choice or chance, it in no way follows that God is not intimately involved in everything that happens and does not happen. Yes, God is involved, but His being involved does not imply causation.

Let's take a closer look at the first assertion:



This is quite false. If you are asserting that nothing happens by chance or choice, this is clearly wrong. Things happen by chance all the time. For example, people roll dice, play cards, and these events follow the laws of probability. They are mathematically demonstrably random, meaning they happen by chance. Another example is quantum mechanics, where the motion of subatomic particles is random.

Regarding God's allowing things happening by choice, how do you think sin came about? If God allowed nothing to happen by choice, sin would not have happened.



MM, this isn't what you said! You said, "Before the Flood, the forces of nature above and below the earth were the same as before A&E sinned." If nature change at all, even a smidgen, your statement is false. For something to not be the same does not imply radical change, but no change. For you to prove your point, you'd need to produce a statement which said "Yet this had in now way changed the face of nature" not "Yet this had not greatly changed the face of nature."



As I pointed out, according to Scripture, the SOP, and science, the waters under the earth were under great pressure. This pressure caused the waters of the great deep to burst forth. That caused the flood.



Right. This proves my point.



You're contradicting yourself. You just pointed out that before sin lions were not carnivorous. That's a difference!



Right! This is why nature changed after sin.



How do you think the water from under the earth's crust got into the atmosphere? "Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth" as EGW put it. Why would they gush up if not under pressure?

Here's a scientific explanation:





MM, you make statements like this all the time, misconstruing your not knowing something with truth. Just because *you* don't know that something exists, does not mean the thing does not exist!

Saying something like the following would be more prudent: "I am aware of no explanation for the flood," if I weren't aware of such. However, an explanation does exist, and I provided you a link for it.



Yes, but we disagree as to His purposes. You have described God as being bloodthirsty for vengeance, as purposing to kill billions of women and children, of punishing people by burning them alive for many hours or days, and other such things. I see God's purposes as being that which Jesus Christ revealed:



We see God's purposes differently because we see His character differently.

Some suffering is so far removed from sinning that it is stretching the truth to conclude it is the result of sinning. For example, the Flood. Those who suffered and perished in the Flood were not suffering the results of sinning. That is, their sins did not cause water to fall from above or gush up from beneath. Instead, God employed the forces of nature to punish and destroy them. The suffering they experienced before they died was caused by the flood God caused to punish them. True, it is because they sinned that God punished them with a flood, but their sins did not cause the flood. There was no natural connection between the sins they committed and the reason why the flood happened.

MM, you're not dealing with the quote. Here's the quote:



Please note this says that it is "true" (not false!) that all suffering results from the transgression for God's law. Now given that sin is the transgression of God's law, it follows that all suffering results from sin. It's easy to see this follows from the statement above, right?

Here's the context of the quote:

It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner. {DA 471.1}

Thus the way was prepared for the Jews to reject Jesus. He who "hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows" was looked upon by the Jews as "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted;" and they hid their faces from Him. Isa. 53:4, 3. {DA 471.2}

God had given a lesson designed to prevent this. The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan, and is overruled by God for purposes of mercy. But Israel did not understand the lesson. The same error for which God had reproved the friends of Job was repeated by the Jews in their rejection of Christ. {DA 471.3}

The belief of the Jews in regard to the relation of sin and suffering was held by Christ's disciples. While Jesus corrected their error, He did not explain the cause of the man's affliction, but told them what would be the result. Because of it the works of God would be made manifest. "As long as I am in the world," He said, "I am the light of the world." Then having anointed the eyes of the blind man, He sent him to wash in the pool of Siloam, and the man's sight was restored. Thus Jesus answered the question of the disciples in a practical way, as He usually answered questions put to Him from curiosity. The disciples were not called upon to discuss the question as to who had sinned or had not sinned, but to understand the power and mercy of God in giving sight to the blind. It was evident that there was no healing virtue in the clay, or in the pool wherein the blind man was sent to wash, but that the virtue was in Christ. {DA 471.4}

"It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life." You believe this, too, don't you Tom?

"Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents." Don't you believe this too?

"It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted." How do you think the truth was perverted?

Again, I do not believe all suffering is the direct result of sinning. In many cases suffering is not the result of natural cause and effect relations like feeling pain when fire is handled. In many cases in the Bible sinners experienced suffering because God inflicted punishment upon them. The punishment was not the result of natural law. That is, their sins did not cause the results. Listen:

Pharaoh, when suffering under the judgments of God, acknowledged his sin in order to escape further punishment, but returned to his defiance of Heaven as soon as the plagues were stayed. {SC 24.1}

No.



No.



People looked upon God as causing the suffering of sinners and punishment or retribution of what they had done.



How about indirect?



This is a good example of the question you asked above ("How do you think the truth was perverted?")

In the Pharaoh quote, the word "suffering" means something different. It's used as a transitive verb here, not intransitive, which is what we've been talking about.


(From Webster's) It's this:



Not this:

You don't? Do you believe sin is never punished in this life?


What causes sinners to suffer the penalty of sinning in this life?


Are you saying God has never done anything that caused, or resulted in, people to suffer because of the sins they committted? What about commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?


Yes, there are times when suffering is the indirect result of sinning. But there are also times when suffering is the direct result of God employing His "workmen" to test and try and grow believers. Such suffering results in righteousness and has nothing to do with sinning and its results.


The ten plagues of Egypt were caused by God. He employed the forces of nature to display His power and might to motivate Pharaoh to let the Jews go. But God also hardened Pharaoh's heart. Why? So that God could completely and thoroughly demonstrate His power and might, to establish Himself as a God unsurpassed in power and might.

God hardened Pharaoh's heart in the same way He will "send strong delusion" at the end of time. See 2 Thes 2:10-12 and Rev 17:17. Whoever does not serve God wholeheartedly, whoever is beyond the hope of salvaiton, God will employ to demonstrate the effects of sinning and rebelling. He uses them to accomplish His purposes. He furhter hardens their hearts.

In the sense that the Jews believed, yes. That is, I believe sin is never punished in this life in the sense of that the Jews believed in the context of the DA quotation.



They don't. They suffer it in the judgment.



Ellen White wrote:



Since it is true that all suffering result from the transgression of God's law, I don't see how suffering could be attributed to God, unless God sins.



But all suffering is the result of violation of God's law, right? So does God violate His own law?

I think you're mixing up God's doing things actively and passively. That is, God permits suffering, and this is how He employs His "workmen" to test and try and grow believers. But God does not cause suffering to happen, because all suffering is the result of a violation of God's law, and God does not sin.

Here's another way to see this. The above quote calls Satan the "author of sin and all its results." Is suffering the result of sin? If so, then Satan is its author.

Now God can do things which result indirectly in suffering, but the cause of the suffering is sin. For example, God can reveal things to us about our character which result in suffering for us, but this suffering is caused by our sin, our defects of character. If there were no sin, there would be no suffering. So God does everything He can to eliminate sin. The only way for sin to be eliminated is for the truth about God to be revealed. This was Christ's work -- the revelation of God. This was the whole purpose of His mission, and it should be ours too!

Jesus grew and learned through suffering.

Hebrews
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

One can't live in a world of sin without suffering. I don't know what your point was in your last post. Of course we can grow and learn through suffering.

The point I've been making is just what EGW said, which is that all suffering is the result of sin.

Jesus did not suffer because He transgressed the law. He "learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." How did Jesus suffer? By resisting temptation - not giving in to sin. Listen:

Hebrews
2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

1 Peter
4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of [his] time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

The kind of suffering spoken of here is not the result of sinning; instead, it is the result of resisting sin. It has nothing to do with transgressing the law of God.

The point I've been making is just what EGW said, which is that all suffering is the result of sin.



Of course Jesus did not suffer because *He* transgressed the law! This was my point earlier when I spoke of suffering the indirect cause of sin. That is, we *may* suffer (and often do) because of our own sin, but we also often suffer because of the sin of others (in Jesus' case, of course, it was *only* because of the sin of others).

But whether the suffering results because of our own sin, or somebody else's, all suffering is the result of sin, as the above quote bears out.

Okay. Fine. But you seem to be saying, and correct me if I've misunderstood you, that God never directly causes people to suffer, that He indirectly causes people to suffer by withdrawing His protection and allowing natural law or Satan or other sinners to cause the actual suffering. If this is what you're saying, then I totally disagree. I agree this is sometimes the case, but there are times when God Himself directly causes people to suffer. And, there are times when He commands holy angles to cause people to suffer. Listen:

GC 614
A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere. {GC 614.2}

MM, if all suffering is the result of transgression of God's law, then how can God be responsible for suffering, unless He violates His law?

Yes, suffering happens because sin happens. If A&E had not sinned the human race would not experience because of sin. But not all suffering happens as a result of sinning. Sometimes God causes people to suffer to help them mature in the fruits of the Spirit. Sometimes He causes suffering to demonstrate His love and power. For example:

Acts
9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
9:9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

John
9:1 And as [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man which was blind from [his] birth.
9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

This means all suffering happens as a result of sinning. Transgression of God's law = sinning. "All suffering" results from this.

Okay.