"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Guest]

The entrance of sin is a mystery to God. This is the meaning of GC 492.

That's not what it says at all, nor what it means. You are saying this is the meaning based on your finite view of God. Read it again:

To many minds the origin of sin and the reason for its existence are a source of great perplexity. They see the work of evil, with its terrible results of woe and desolation, and they question how all this can exist under the sovereignty of One who is infinite in wisdom , in power, and in love. Here is a mystery of which they find no explanation. And in their uncertainty and doubt they are blinded to truths plainly revealed in God's word and essential to salvation. {GC 492}

What part of infinite wisdom do you not understand? You are making the case that His wisdom is finite. Also notice WHO she says it is a mystery to. Not God. YOU.

There are those who, in their inquiries concerning the existence of sin, endeavor to search into that which God has never revealed; hence they find no solution of their difficulties; {GC 492}

Notice here where it says He has not REVEALED IT. Not that He doesn't know.

Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; ....Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; {GC 492}

Notice that it says OUR ONLY DEFINITION not God's.

[Guest]

No, you're misrepresenting what she said. She said, "It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a reason for its existence." This includes God.

You are adding words that she never said. Those are your words only, to make it include your point of view. How long have you been using this method of study? And I use the word study loosly.

I call it the "intelligent assumption method". That's where you assume you are intelligent enough to make assumptions based on your beliefs, and prior understanding.

This method very rarely, if ever, arrives at truth. This is a fact that you should be very concerned about if you are at all serious about wanting to know God's will.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

That's not what it says at all, nor what it means. You are saying this is the meaning based on your finite view of God. Read it again:

To many minds the origin of sin and the reason for its existence are a source of great perplexity. They see the work of evil, with its terrible results of woe and desolation, and they question how all this can exist under the sovereignty of One who is infinite in wisdom, in power, and in love. Here is a mystery of which they find no explanation. And in their uncertainty and doubt they are blinded to truths plainly revealed in God's word and essential to salvation. {GC 492}

What part of infinite wisdom do you not understand? You are making the case that His wisdom is finite. Also notice WHO she says it is a mystery to. Not God. YOU.

There are those who, in their inquiries concerning the existence of sin, endeavor to search into that which God has never revealed; hence they find no solution of their difficulties; {GC 492}

Notice here where it says He has not REVEALED IT. Not that He doesn't know.

Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; ....Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; {GC 492}

Notice that it says OUR ONLY DEFINITION not God's.

So your idea is that the following does not apply to God:

Quote:

Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin.

So you think by this she actually meant, "Could excuse for it be found, by anyone other than God, or cause be shown for its existence, by anyone other than God, it would cease to be sin."?

If this is what you think, I think you've completely missed her point. It's not that God knows why sin came into existence, and He's just not telling us, but there is not explanation. If there were an explanation, if cause could be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin.

This means, as clearly as words can express the concept, that there is no cause for the existence of sin. It does not mean that there is a cause, and God knows what it is, but He's not telling us.

[Guest]

Simply put: If God had limitations on his wisdom, like you are trying to impose, then His wisdom would NOT be infinite.

Look up the word infinite in the dictionary. If there was even one tiny thing that God could not know, then His wisdom is not infinite. That's why you need to stop leaning on your own understanding.

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Pro 3:7 Be not wise in thine own eyes:

[pnattmbtc]

You are adding words that she never said.

[pnattmbtc]

Simply put: If God had limitations on his wisdom, like you are trying to impose, then His wisdom would NOT be infinite.

You're saying that because it is not possible for a cause to be shown for the existence of sin, this places a limit on God's wisdom? This is false reasoning.

There is no cause for sin. This is what GC 542 is explaining. If a cause could be shown, it would cease to be sin.

It makes no difference who is showing the cause. The salient point is that a cause cannot be shown.

[Guest]

Quote:

The salient point is that a cause cannot be shown.

Not by YOU. Or any human. Either God has infinite wisdom or He doesn't. Look up the word infinte, and see how many limitations are allowed.

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Pro 3:7 Be not wise in thine own eyes:

[John317]

Quote:

pnattmbtc:"Mete," in the context of meting out punishment, has to do with measuring. This fits whether the punishment is arbitrary or organic.

Quote:

RICHARD: Yes, it mean to measure out. The definition of "mete" in any dictionary, says nothing about "agreeing to something that has already been measured".

Quote:

pnattmbtc: This follows automatically if the punishment is organic as opposed to arbitrary.

Why must the punishment be "organic," or rather simply organic?

Where does the Bible or SOP say the punishment must only be organic?

If that were the case, why do you think Ellen White says that the sins of people are taken carefully into account and that what "they MUST receive at the execution of the judgment is set off against their names"? Consider again the angel's words: "'Behold ye,' said the angel, 'the saints in unison with Jesus, sit in judgment, and mete out [or "measure out" or "allot"] to the wicked according to the deeds done in the body, and that which they MUST receive at the execution of the judgment is set off against their names.'"

It's important to remember that the universe needs to see that the punishment against sin and sinners is fair and in accordance with their sins. It is a very public trial. The decisions at to the punishment meted out to each individual is witnessed by everyone. The righteous, in unison with Christ, do not make the decisions arbitrarily but according to the perfect measuring stick of God.

The wicked do destroy themselves and they do suffer because of their sins, and not arbitrarily; but the "portion" the wicked "must suffer" is not organic but decided upon by Jesus in unison with the saints in heaven during the 1000 years after they closely study the lives of the wicked. Otherwise, there is no reason for all the records kept of all our thoughts, words, actions, etc. Why are these recorded in the "books" if those records will have no bearing on the decisions reached in the Judgment? If the suffering and punishment of the wicked were only "organic," God would have no need for an investigative judgment or the examination of people's lives. In that case, the wicked would simply be allowed to die without the careful study of the record of their sins.

This principle also applies to the righteous, who are judged during the Investigative Judgment between 1844 and the close of human probation just before the second coming. The salvation of the righteous are not merely "organic." Our live are investigated carefully and a public decision is reached, and a record is made of that decision. It is known in advance who will be saved when Christ returns. That decison is irreversable and written in heaven's "books" by the close of human probation. It is being decided NOW.

I'm afraid that many of us are spiritualing away these truths that Seventh-day Adventists believe.

Some are saying that the pioneers did not believe that the wicked are literally destroyed by fire that comes down from God out of heaven and consumes them as they surround the holy city. But I do not find that to be the case at all.

I would like to see the earliest clear statements in the SDA church which teach what some are teaching now, that God will not literally destroy the wicked by literal fire that really comes from God out of heaven. The literal view was taught in the book, Bible Readings for the Home, pub. 1914. I've also seen this literal view recently in the book, The Seer of Patmos, written by Stephen N. Haskell. In that book, concerning the judgment that takes place during the 1000 years, Haskell writes, "During the thousand years the righteous reign with Christ, and with Him, go through the Book of Death, awarding punishment to those whose names are written there... Then from His throne, God breathes upon the assembled multitudes. Fire comes down from God out of heaven, and mingles with the fire which comes from the interior of the earth; and it devours them" (pp. 334-336). An examination of those pages will prove without question that Elder Haskell believed and taught that the fire that destroys the wicked is literal and that it literally come from God out of heaven.

My grandfather was an SDA minister and writer and a contemporary of Stephen Haskell. He also knew Ellen White and wrote articles on the last-day events in prophecy at the request of the General Conference. My grandmother was a paid Bible worker for the SDA church in those early years. None of these people knew anything about concept being taught currently by some among us that the wicked will not really be destroyed by God but will simply die as a result of "organic causes," quite apart from any decision made by Jesus Christ and the righteous in the judgment during the 1000 years.

Ellen White: "They do not believe a merciful God who made men will consume them with fire because they do not believe the warnings given. This, they reason, is not in accordance with God....

"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... They measure God by themseles. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do.

"God's goodness and long forbearance, His patience and mercy exercised to His subjects, will not hinder Him from punishing the sinner who refused to be obedient to His requirements. It is not for a man-- a criminal against God's holy law, pardoned only through the great sacrifice He made in giving His Son to die for the guilty because His law was changeless-- to dictate to God." (12 MR 207, 208)

NOTE: If Ellen White did not believe that it was God who was punishing and destroying the wicked at the end of time, why didn't she simply tell the reader that it wasn't God doing it?

When she says people measure God by themselves, is she saying that God won't punish like people would? No. She is saying, on the contrary, that people may believe God won't punish and destroy the wicked, but God will most certainly destroy them. This is the only thing it CAN mean. Read again, "God's love is represented in our day as being of such a characer as would forbid His destroying the sinner. MEN REASON FROM THEIR OWN LOW STANDARD OF RIGHT AND JUSTICE...." She is saying that men have such a low standard of right and justice that they think God will not destroy the wicked. She says they are wrong to reason this way.

I wouldn't burn up all the wicked. I would allow them to rest in their graves and never make them answer for all their evil deeds. I would think it's enough for them to lose eternal life. Why make them burn? And if I would raise them up, I would just let them go to sleep while they're in my arms, like I did with my dog a few weeks ago when she had to be euthenized. Why make the teen agers suffer for their sins? And the grandmothers? Maybe my brother? Oh no. I couldn't do it. I wouldn't even punish them at all. I'd just let them lie down in the shade of a big tree and go into the dark night of oblivion with a nice smile on their face. What would be gained by punishing the damned anyway? It can't do them any good. It would be only torture to do otherwise.

That is how I would reason in my low standard of right and justice. But God reasons otherwise.

To continue:

"After all this effort on the part of God to preseve the sacred and exalted characteer of His law, if men, through the sophistry of the devil, turn the mercy and condescension of God into a curse, they MUST [not "will" but MUST] suffer the penalty. Because Christ died they consider they have liberty to transgress God's holy law that condemns the transgressor, and WOULD COMPLAIN OF ITS STRICTNESSS AND ITS PENALTY AS SEVERE AND UNLIKE GOD. THEY ARE UTTERING THE WORDS SATAN UTTERS TO MILLIONS, to quiet their conscience in rebellion against God...

"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." (12 MR 208, 209)

NOTE: All of the above only makes sense if God literally causes the punishment of the wicked. Otherwise all she needs to say is that God doesn't punish the wicked but they punish themselves.

Notice that she says God "can do infinite justice that man has no right to do," and she is speaking of God actively and positively causing the destruction of sinners. The people in the flood did not drown themselves nor did Satan drown them. We don't give credit to Satan for the destruction of the world in a flood or for the destruction that fell on Sodom. Nor for Adam's being driven form the Garden. No, those were acts of God, not the devil. The record does not state that the Devil drove out the man. It says God drove the man out. Satan will one day have to pay the penalty for having tempted Adam to sin, but it was not the Devil that drove Adam out after Adam sinned. Gen. 3 shows clearly that it was God's decision in order that sin and rebels would not be immortalized.

Is it our right today to tell God how He must punish the wicked? No. Absolutely not. We need to study the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy to see how God will punish the wicked and then say, with the saved, "'Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.' Rev. 19: 6." GC 673.

It's not a joyful part of the plan of redemption but it is an important and necessary part of it and one that we need to face and understand.

If we feel that we can't love and worship such a God-- then we don't see sin and rebellion for what it really is. We need to ask God to give us insight into the problem of sin so we will see sin in the same light that He does.

"They do not believe a merciful God who made men will consume them with fire becaue they do not believe the warnings given. This, they reason, is not in accordance with 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 penlty is of no force." (12 MR 207, 208).

[Guest]

Amen!

[pnattmbtc]

p:The salient point is that a cause cannot be shown.

R:Not by YOU. Or any human.

[pnattmbtc]

J:Why must the punishment be "organic," or rather simply organic?

[pnattmbtc]

Why must the punishment be "organic," or rather simply organic?

Where does the Bible or SOP say the punishment must only be organic?

If that were the case, why do you think Ellen White says that the sins of people are taken carefully into account and that what "they MUST receive at the execution of the judgment is set off against their names"?

[Guest]

No, you are.

No, you are? Well I guess you've proven your point then. I hadn't thought of that piece of evidence. LOL

[Guest]

This is simply another way of saying there is no cause for sin. That should be easy to see.

That's why it's a mystery.

If this was all you were saying, I wouldn't bother to argue with you, but it's not. You're saying God doesn't know the future, that He only knows the possiblities. Which is heresy. The Bible and the SOP both plainly state that there is nothing God cannot know.

That's what INFINITE wisdom is!

If I had to do all the twisting and turning and mental gymnastics that you do in order arrive at your beliefs, I do believe that it would dawn on me that something was wrong. The hardest part of dialoging with you, is trying to get you to look at what it actually says, instead of what you THINK it says. You simply are not willing to do that. If you were, you couldn't believe some of the things you do.

[phkrause]

I agree with you Richard 100%

pk

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: :Why must the punishment be "organic," or rather simply organic?

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: Because it leads us to wrong conclusions in regards to the issues of the Great Controversy, the nature of sin, and the character of God if we don't understand this.

Let's talk a bit about those conclusions. Please be specific as to the wrong conclusions you believe it leads to. I think I know what you mean but I want to be clear as to your meaning. Doubtless you have in mind something about the suffering being "abitrary" if it not strictly "organic," is that true?

Do these conclusions directly and clearly contradict the statements in the Bible and in the Spirit of prophecy?

Also, could you define exactly what you mean by "organic" in this context? Do you find it used in that way in any SDA writings, and if so, whose? Do you know when it was first used in that way?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Where does the Bible or SOP say the punishment must only be organic?

Quote:

PNATTMBTC: DA 764 is one place that makes this clear. The whole chapter "It Is Finished" is good for this theme. So is the first chapter of "The Desire of Ages." The chapter in "The First Great Deception" in "The Great Controversy" is also good, as is the first chapter "The Destruction of Jerusalem."

OK, thank you. I shall study these chapters with that in mind. I've read them all several times before, and some many times, but never concentrating on the specific question we're looking into now. Those are wonderful, very important chapters, for sure. I'll get back with you about them, as soon as I can.

Let me explain something. I'm a diabetic and have some problems with it at present. I could actually lose my feet, it looks like. I hope not but.... Anyway, I can't sit at the computer as long as I would like because when I sit for too long, my feet swell up and "kill me," although hopefully not literally. They're reddish purple right now and I'm unable wear shoes. But I have to go to the Veterans Hospital today and see what they can do to help save my "pig feet," as I call them. My wife wanted me out of here a long time ago, but I so much enjoy the dialogue and the study that I put off leaving. So if I don't write as much as you think I ought to, and when you want it, that's why. A year ago at this time, I was sitting at the computer for hours at a time, and enjoying it, but that is also one of the reasons I have some problems now, I think. It pays to obey the health laws, which, of course, include lots of exercise. Finger movements on the keyboard just don't get it. lol

[Guest]

So that the punishment can be seen, that it is in accordance with the life of the person being judged.

But if God is not the one who administers the punishment, like you believe, then that doesn't make any sense.

In order for the punishment to be meted out in a measured way, God has to do it. It cannot be left to Satan and the sinners to administer their own punishment properly.

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: pnat

No, you are.

No, you are? Well I guess you've proven your point then. I hadn't thought of that piece of evidence. LOL

[pnattmbtc]

p:This is simply another way of saying there is no cause for sin. That should be easy to see.

That's why it's a mystery.

R:If this was all you were saying, I wouldn't bother to argue with you...

Ok, let's stop here, and see if this is true. All I'm saying here is that there is no cause for sin, and no one, not even God, can show that there is. That's why it's a mystery.

I'm not saying anything about the future in saying this.

Do you really agree with this? Or were you kidding?

[pnattmbtc]

JOHN3:17: :Why must the punishment be "organic," or rather simply organic?

PNATTMBTC: Because it leads us to wrong conclusions in regards to the issues of the Great Controversy, the nature of sin, and the character of God if we don't understand this.

J:Let's talk a bit about those conclusions. Please be specific as to the wrong conclusions you believe it leads to.

[pnattmbtc]

p:So that the punishment can be seen, that it is in accordance with the life of the person being judged.

R:But if God is not the one who administers the punishment, like you believe, then that doesn't make any sense.

In order for the punishment to be meted out in a measured way, God has to do it. It cannot be left to Satan and the sinners to administer their own punishment properly.

I've never suggested what you are saying.

Let me give an example, so that the concept of an organic relationship is understood. Let's say you run a stop light, and run into another car, and get injured as a result, in addition to your car being totaled. This is an organic relationship, cause and effect. Your punishment fit your crime, although nothing was artificially imposed against you.

Now if a cop comes by and gives you a ticket, and the judge sentences you to some fine or jail time, that's a different story. Here individual discretion was used, as by a judge, which is "arbitrary."

In the first case, one would not describe you as administering your own punishment properly, but would simply say that you received your just desserts for disregarding the law, or something similar.

[pnattmbtc]

Ty Gibson

The law is not an arbitrary set of rules made up at random by God to prove His authority over us, but rather a practical explanation of what love looks like in real life…Sin is anything contrary to the character of God; more specifically, anything contrary to His love…

Love is God’s law, the principle by which He lives. It is a law because it is not arbitrary, but based on reality as it is, governing life by its righteous principles. Love is the law by which God made and sustains life….

Sin is the opposite, antagonistic principle at war with the law of love. Do not view sin as merely an alternative way of living, which happens to be harmlessly different from God’s way. God’s way is the only way to live, not because He happens to be more powerful and can arbitrarily punish us if we don’t comply, but because life is actually, intrinsically present only in God’s way, which is the way of love. The problem with sin is that it is wrong, actually, essentially, inherently wrong. And it is wrong for good reason, not just because the One in charge doesn’t like it. To be sure, God does not like sin, but He doesn’t like it because of what it does to is victims, not because He is a picky control freak who decided to come up with a list of arbitrary rules to keep us under His thumb. Sin, by its very nature, is anti-life. It is intrinsically destructive. Hence the Bible calls it the “law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2).

Once the nature of sin is understood, it is easy to see why sin is a law of death: sin is selfishness, the antithesis of love. As such, it leads inevitably to the exclusion of, and isolation from, the sustaining love and support of all others….

Because God’s love is the law of the universe, by which He created and sustains all things, the principles of that law are designed into our very natures. Within our psycho-emotional makeup, love is encoded as the law of life. When we violate that law, a malfunction signal issues a warning in the form of guilt. That part of our minds we call *conscience* senses discomfort with sin and identifies it as a destructive virus in the computer system, so to speak. Guilt is not arbitrarily imposed by God any more than His law is arbitrary. He is the Architect of conscience, but He is not the source of guilt. He made us with the capacity to feel guilt as a merciful and wise deterrent to sin, desiring, of course, that we would never experience its pain….

While God does not desire that anyone ever experience physical pain or the psychological pain of guilt, even more so He does not desire our utter destruction. Pain is a built-in mercy mechanism intended to aid in the preservation of life. Pain is not an indication that God is exercising some kind of power above, beyond, or contrary to His law of love in order to inflict suffering as an arbitrary punishment for sin. Punishment is organic to sin itself….

It is commonly thought that the connection between sin and death is imply that if we don’t repent of our sins God will kill us. Often no actual, intrinsic relationship is discerned between sin and death. But even a casual consideration of Scripture on this point persuades us otherwise. Notice just these few examples (quotes Gal. 6:7, 8; Rom. 6:16, 21-23; Rom. 8:6; Rom. 8:13; Prov. 8:36; James 1:15)…

So, when Paul says that holiness results in eternal life, he is not removing God from the equation and making life a mere naturalistic cause and effect matter. He is simply describing *how* God gives us eternal life….

God does not threaten, “If you keep sinning, I will kill you.” Rather, He warns, “If you continue in sin, you will die,” for “sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” And so He pleads, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die …? (Ezek. 33:11). We’re caught off guard by a question like this from God. We are more inclined to ask Him, “Why do You kill?” But He points to our sin and asks us, “Why do you choose death?”…

(quotes Rom. 5:11; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 2:24, 25; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15)

Please not the recurring point in the preceding verses:

• Through Christ we receive “atonement”; we are made one with God.

• The purpose of the substitutionary death of Christ is to “bring us to God”; not Him to us. God has demonstrated His reconciled position toward us in Christ.

• Through sin we have gone “astray”; but through the sacrifice of Christ we “are not returned” to God.

• The love of Christ, revealed in His death, causes us to cease living for self and to start living for Him; we are reestablished in the circle of selfless, other-centered love through the atoning death of Christ….

(discussing the three-party picture of the atonement)

1. The sinner, who has aroused the anger of God.

2. A wrathful God, who needs personal satisfaction that can only be derived from inflicting suffering and imposing death; only then will He even consider letting us off the hook with forgiveness.

3. A third-party victim, who is made to suffer and die as a substitute for the sinner.

There are a number of serious problems with the three-party picture, foremost of which is that it makes no legal or moral sense for an innocent third-party victim to suffer the penalty for the wrongdoer. If such an arrangement could actually satisfy God, then we would be forced to conclude that His law and His wrath are irrational and arbitrary, meaning there is no actual relationship between law and sin and death. If God’s wrath can be appeased by venting rage on an innocent third party, then it follows that there is no real problem with sin other than the fact that God doesn’t want us doing it: His law is arbitrary. Moreover, since we have failed to meet His arbitrary demands, we had better suffer ourselves or find a whipping boy to suffer in our place: His wrath is arbitrary.

Biblical Christianity proclaims, in extreme contrast to the third-party view of substitution, that God has given Himself as our Substitute, to bear our sin and its inherent, divinely-ordained penalty. Hence there are only two parties involved in the atonement: 1. The sinner, who has aroused in God a painful tension between a holy, rational anger against sin and an equally holy, rational mercy toward the sinner. 2. An infinitely just an definitely merciful God, who loves us so selflessly that He has chosen to give Himself to suffer and die as our Substitute….

So what actually happened on that hill far away as the Son of God hung between heaven and earth? Did Christ bear the wrath of God at Calvary? What part did the Father act in the suffering and death of Christ? A number of Scriptures bear a consistent testimony to answer these questions:

(quotes Acts 2:23, 24; Acts 4:24-28) ….

Did the Father cause the suffering and death of Christ?

Yes and no!

Yes, if we mean He delivered Him over to suffering and death according to His own wise purpose of grace. Yes, if we mean that the Father gave up His Son to experience the tormenting psychological agony of our guilt.

No, if we mean He acted as an arbitrary source of pain and death, as the tormentor and executioner of His Son. No, if we mean that the Father assumed a position of vicious hostility toward His Son. Christ suffered and died at *our* hands, under the burden of *our* sin, by the gracious, self-sacrificing purpose of the Father….

In holy hatred of sin and unrelenting love for the sinner, the Father handed over His Son to bear the guilt inherent in our sin and to endure the selfish, murderous rage lashing out from our sin. This fits perfectly with Paul’s definition of divine wrath. He explains that it is God giving sinners over to receive in themselves the penalty inherent in their sin (Romans 1:18-28). Christ felt “forsaken” by God, “delivered” up to suffer all that sin ultimately is, not pounced upon with hostility.

The Father was right there with His Son all along, behind the darkening veil imposed by our sin, feeling the pain of the agonizing separation.

I can love a God like that. I am so glad He is that kind of God. You can love Him too. I know you can, because your heart, like mine, yearns to love and be loved with such passionate grace.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard

p:So that the punishment can be seen, that it is in accordance with the life of the person being judged.

R:But if God is not the one who administers the punishment, like you believe, then that doesn't make any sense.

In order for the punishment to be meted out in a measured way, God has to do it. It cannot be left to Satan and the sinners to administer their own punishment properly.

I've never suggested what you are saying.

Let me give an example, so that the concept of an organic relationship is understood. Let's say you run a stop light, and run into another car, and get injured as a result, in addition to your car being totaled. This is an organic relationship, cause and effect. Your punishment fit your crime, although nothing was artificially imposed against you.

Now if a cop comes by and gives you a ticket, and the judge sentences you to some fine or jail time, that's a different story. Here individual discretion was used, as by a judge, which is "arbitrary."

In the first case, one would not describe you as administering your own punishment properly, but would simply say that you received your just desserts for disregarding the law, or something similar.

The problem with that analogy is, that if that is all the punishment I get, then you cannot say I got exactly what I deserved. It could just as easily have killed me, which would be a little stiff for just running a stop sign. Or I could have come through without a scratch, and tore the other guys car all to pieces, and barely hurt mine at all.

That is why God's justice cannot be organic, as you put it. If He just lets them destroy one another, and let the chips fall where they may, then there is no way for "the punishment to be meted out in accordance with the life of the person being judged".

There would be absolutely no need for: (read it this time pnat)

Christ, in union with His people, judged the wicked dead, comparing their acts with the statute book, the Word of God, and deciding every case according to the deeds done in the body. Then they meted out to the wicked the portion which they must suffer, according to their works; and it was written against their names in the book of death. Satan also and his angels were judged by Jesus and the saints. Satan's punishment was to be far greater than that of those whom he had deceived. His suffering would so far exceed theirs as to bear no comparison with it. After all those whom he had deceived had perished, Satan was still to live and suffer on much longer. {EW 290}

No where in the Bible or the SOP is it (the destruction of the wicked) described as coming from any other source but God. You just refuse to believe it. It boggles my mind. To say that God is just going to let it happen organically in spite of all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is ludicrous. There is absolutely no way it could happen organically and be precicely meted out at the same time. That's impossible.

[Robert]

No where in the Bible or the SOP is it (the destruction of the wicked) described as coming from any other source but God. You just refuse to believe it. It boggles my mind. To say that God is just going to let it happen organically in spite of all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is ludicrous. There is absolutely no way it could happen organically and be precicely meted out at the same time. That's impossible.

Do you have any concept of justice? No, you don't!!!! All of you who teach a God who tortures...a God who kills keep ignoring one important point - that is, that Christ took upon Himself the sins of the whole world and yet He only suffered for less than one day.....Hmmm? Yet you have some sinners suffering for many days? Again, hmmm?

[pnattmbtc]

The problem with that analogy is, that if that is all the punishment I get, then you cannot say I got exactly what I deserved. It could just as easily have killed me, which would be a little stiff for just running a stop sign. Or I could have come through without a scratch, and tore the other guys car all to pieces, and barely hurt mine at all.

That is why God's justice cannot be organic, as you put it. If He just lets them destroy one another, and let the chips fall where they may, then there is no way for "the punishment to be meted out in accordance with the life of the person being judged".