No I haven't. I've been consistent with her meaning, as evidenced by the context.



No, this isn't what she's saying. She's not saying "God destroys the wicked by His own power, but He doesn't do so arbitrarily." She's saying what I wrote, that God is not using an imposed power to destroy the wicked. I'll comment more on this in a moment.



I get the idea from reading what she wrote. Here's Webster's primary meaning of arbitrary:



You appear to have in mind a meaning of "arbitrary" as "capricious" or "marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power." This is a possible meaning of the word, but it's not the meaning she's using, which is easily seen by considering the context of what she wrote.

If her meaning is as you are suggesting, she would have written something along the lines of:

1.The destruction of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God.
2.God does destroy them by and act of power, but it's not an arbitrary act.
3.The reason why it's not arbitrary is because of (give reasons).

But that's how she argued. She argued like this.

1.The destruction of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God.
2.The destruction of the wicked is a result of their own choice.
3.They destroy themselves in this way (she mentions one thing)
4.They destroy themselves in this way (she mentions another thing)
5.Had God left Satan to reap the results of his sin, he would have perished, but it would not have been clear that this was the inevitable result of sin.

She says as clearly as possible that the destruction of the wicked, and Satan, is not due to something God is doing to them, but due to their own choice. She says it's the inevitable result of sin. She speaks of God's *leaving* Satan to reap the result of his sin.

There's nothing in the paragraphs cited that indicates the idea you are suggesting. Here it is again for your convenience:



Please verify that the context is not discussing whether or not God's use of power is arbitrary or not, but who is responsible for the destruction of the wicked, and what the cause of their destruction is.



No, she doesn't do this at all. She doesn't give any reasons for God's exercise of power. This is what she *should* have done if your idea as to what she meant by "arbitrary" were correct, but this is not what she did. Instead she argued that the destruction of the wicked is not due God's actions, but due to the wickeds' actions. Her use of the word "arbitrary" is consistent with Webster's primary definition of the word.



Again, if one considers what she wrote in DA 764, she doesn't say anything like this.



This agrees with what she wrote, especially DA 107, 108 discusses this. However, she's not referring to a literal fire here, which is made clear by the context.



This is straight from GC 541-543. Here's the portion my comment above discusses:



The part in bold is the thought I expressed.



The SC quote is dealing with a different situation. Before the judgment, as we live now, everybody wants to go to heaven, or virtually so (a few people think if there's no beer in heaven, they'd rather by in hell, etc., but for the most part people want to go to heaven). She points out that simply wanting to go to heaven isn't enough. And her point is right on.

If one doesn't actually respond to the Spirit of God, doesn't train the mind to love purity, form a character fit for heaven, then when one actually sees God in the judgment, heaven will be like she describes it; a place of terror that one longs to flee from. It's interesting to note that if God desired to inflict pain and suffering upon the wicked, it's not necessary for Him to do something as hideous as setting them on fire. Simply not allowing them to leave His presence would be sufficient.

The real issue here hasn't been dealt with, and that's one regarding God's character. What would God be like if He set people on fire, using supernatural power to keep them alive, so that the fire that engulfs them doesn't consume them, or kill them, or even damage their nerve endings, for the purpose of torturing them for many hours or many days?

This is a bit difficult to follow. I believe I'm saying what DA 764 says. She writes that death is the inevitable result of sin. Also "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."



Given the choice of living in heaven, or death, they choose death. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves. It would be torture for them. (GC 543)

Tom,

You are still not providing the full definition of "arbitrary." Since I recently acquired the brand new Ellen White CD (2008 version), I have been enjoying some of its features. It has the Webster's 1828 dictionary, which is very helpful in understanding the word usages of Mrs. White's day. Here is arbitrary in that dictionary:



What Mrs. White is saying by using this word should be clear:

1) God is not a despot.
2) God does not punish for no reason (i.e. lawlessly).
3) God's punishment is not merely subjective or whimsical.

Yes, the word "capricious" is synonymous with arbitrary to a certain extent. But the word arbitrary focuses more on the aspect of law. Doing something arbitrarily necessarily means that it is without subjection to law and order.

God has a law. It is this law that must be requited by the death of the sinner. As such, it is not an arbitrary exercise of power on God's part, but rather a lawful one.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Who are we to tell Mrs. White what to do? She was God's servant, and is accountable to Him for her writings.

Did Jesus ever tell anyone why He called the Samaritan woman a dog? Should He have justified His words, by telling us the reason? or should we be able to understand His methods by looking at the entire body of His ministry?

Mrs. White need not make every statement provide the full picture. It is to be expected that other statements will help to provide a fuller picture.

I accept the DA statement you provided. Do you accept the GC statement I posted? If so, how can you still hold to a belief that denies God's participation/power in the justice which is executed?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

She's using the primary definition:



She is not arguing that God is not being capricious. If she were, she would have argued along the lines I pointed out.



But she didn't do this. Instead, she did this:



It doesn't appear to me that you're considering what she actually wrote. Here's a section:



Please note:

1.The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.
2.When one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.
3."All they that hate Me love death."
4.They receive the results of their own choice.
5.By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire.
6.The glory (character) of Him who is love will destroy them.
7.Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished.
8.This (death) is the inevitable result of sin.

Over and over again she makes the point she should be making if she's using the primary definition of "arbitrary." Not once does she make the argument she should be making if she had the secondary argument in mind.

The most important issue to my view hasn't been dealt with, and that's one regarding God's character. What would God be like if He set people on fire, using supernatural power to keep them alive, so that the fire that engulfs them doesn't consume them, or kill them, or even damage their nerve endings, for the purpose of torturing them for many hours or many days?

The only reason I can think of that you would respond this way is that you didn't understand what I meant. I said she should have written the way I outlined *if* what you suggested regarding the meaning of the word "arbitrary" were true. But it's not true. She didn't have that meaning of the word in mind. This is clear by taking into account what she actually wrote.



This is exactly my point. DA 764 helps us to understand that God does not use an arbitrary act of power to destroy the wicked, but that they die as a result of their own choice; they separate themselves from God, who is the source of life, etc.



I don't see that you're accepting the DA statement at all. It You're suggesting a meaning of the word "arbitrary" which looks to me to be indicating that you're not accepting it.

Regarding the GC statement, I would add Revelation to the mix as well. What I believe in regards to what Ellen White and John wrote is that they described what they saw in vision. But I think they would both be taken aback in horror at the idea that God would set people on fire, and keep them burning for days or hours at at time, or for all eternity (as some people think).

In DA 764, Ellen White is writing plainly, not simply describing a vision she saw. She's explaining the events in terms of principles. What I believe is that we should understand these principles, and then apply them to other passages, such as in Revelation or the GC passage.

Tom,

You're exactly right. She's using the primary definition of arbitrary. But you have missed what that is. I will use your "primary definition" which you provided as "Exhibit A" in this case:



That's in the definition #1, i.e. "primary definition" (although an honest scholar would never take such liberty as to say an author must necessarily always use but the "primary definition" to a given word).

I repeat, by her use of the adjective "arbitrary," Ellen White is qualifying the kind of power God uses. If God did NOT use His power in this, she might simply have left the word unqualified, and omitted the word "arbitrary" entirely. That she does not do so should mean something.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

On this point, I am not misunderstanding your meaning, but you forget what my understanding is. I believe that she is indeed meaning that which you refuse to accept. Therefore, you are trying to say that Mrs. White should have written another way. However, I do not believe it necessary for her to have done so, as the meaning of her words is plain enough in this and in other statements as well.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, I haven't. The meaning is by individual discretion. By saying that the wicked are not destroyed by an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, using the primary definition, she is saying that God does not, by an act of individual discretion, by means of an act of power, destroy the wicked.



Please explain your comment here. Are you thinking I said that Ellen White must necessarily always use the primary definition of the word? I certainly didn't say that! I claimed she did, in this case, do so, and presented an argument as to why. So why your comment here?



That's correct, and according to the primary definition of the word, the qualification is that it not an act of individual discretion (or "depending upon will or discretion").



She might have, or she might have done what she did, which was to point out that the destruction of the wicked is not due to an imposed act of power (imposed is a synonym to "individual discretion" here; if you act on the basis of individual discretion, that's an imposed act).



And it does! What it means is clear by the context. It means that the death of the wicked is not due to something God imposes upon the wicked, but is the result of their own choice, as she repeats again and again. She says not a word about God's not being despotic, or any such thing. That's not the context of her statement. The context is that the destruction of the wicked is the result of their own choice, the inevitable result of sin.

Ok, I'll try wording it another way. You have an idea, which is that EGW used the word "arbitrary" not in accordance with its primary definition, but with a secondary definition. If you were correct on this point, then what Ellen White wrote would bear this out. She would have argued along the following lines:



But she didn't. She argued along these lines:



So the evidence doesn't bear out your idea of what she meant by the word "arbitrary."



The evidence doesn't bear this out, as I've shown.



No, you're misunderstanding things here. I'm saying IF what you are asserting, that "arbitrary" was used according the secondary definition as opposed to the primary one, THEN she should have written along the lines I outlined. BUT she did not write the way I outlined. THEREFORE what you asserted is false.

This is a standard argument.

Here is the structure of the argument:

1.You assert X.
2.I argue that if X were the case, then Y would follow.
3.I demonstrate that Y is not the case.
4.I conclude that therefore X is false.

For you to counter this argument, you should do one of the following:

1.Argue that it's not true that if X were the case that Y would follow.

or

2.Argue that Y is the case.

In the case of our discussion, this means you should either argue that Ellen White didn't write what I claimed she did, or argue that the fact that she wrote as I say she does not imply what I say it does.

I am not asserting that Ellen White should have written differently than she did. If this is what you're understanding, you're not understanding what was written correctly.



What she wrote in DA 764 is indeed clear, and bears out that she had in mind the primary meaning of the word "arbitrary," as I demonstrated.