Teresaq, would you mind spelling out how you see the plagues playing out at the end of time. Tom seems to think your view is right.

Ok, liane, I'm glad you've agreed with me in the points I addressed to your first post. It looks like you are agreeing with the points I made, backing off from what you said, and making new points (if I've misunderstood you here, please let me know.)

Regarding the new points, we've discussed this at length in other threads. But as this thread seems to be covering everything under the sun, perhaps a few words are in order.

Here's a description of the death of the wicked from the SOP:



Let's take special note of the the last two sentences.

1.By a life of rebellion (the wicked) place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire.
2.The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

From the description above we see that the wicked to do die because they (or anyone else) cast themselves into a literal lake of fire. They die because they have formed characters which are not in harmony with God's. God would keep them alive if He could, because He loves them, but He can't. For them to live would be misery. GC 541-543 goes into detail about this.

It is the "glory of God" that will destroy them. Unless we think that the "glory of God" is literal fire, we can see that it is not literal fire that causes their death, any more than a literal sword causes the death of those of whom we were speaking in the previous post.

Please keep in mind that Revelation is a symbolic book.

She provided quotes.



This was proved in the thread you started. GC did a very good job with this, by the way.

I've also suggested the book "The Everlasting Covenant" for you to study. This has several hundred pages doing the very thing you are asking for -- explaining the Gospel from the books of Moses.

I didn't say her "view is right," but that I agreed with the things she has been saying. If you read through the thread, you can see what she said.

i thought that was what i was understanding you to say. so where am i missing you? or are you saying that the texts and quotes presented do not match the picture you have of what will happen?

Hi Teresa:

Let me re-read your posts again in the morning when I am less tired and it is quiet here at the ranch.

I think from what I am finding is that some of what you quote is mixed up in my mind of when something is to happen. I think that some of what you are quoting is being used as before the 1,000 years instead of after the 1,000 in my mind.

So I will respond more tomorrow when it is better for me.

Thanks for sharing and I am sure with the help of the Holy Spirit as faithful servants of God we will come together in our understanding of the truth of God's Words.

hello, my sister. can you tell me when the plagues actually start killing anyone, if any do?
we do not read the pioneers like we should but it does not seem that they believed the way we do now.

our pioneers were loathe to believe in an eternally burning hell where God tortured people for eons. they appear to be just as loathe to believe that God would torture for a short period of time, also. where did we go astray?

Feeling pity for the sinner, but also manifesting indignation for sin. But my point was that God’s wrath against sin here is not portrayed as abandoning the sinner to reap what he has sown, but is manifested actively by making the sinner feel the gravity of his sin.


Because they weren't comitting the sins Christ was condemning, otherwise they would have fled, too.

Yes, considering all that Christ did and taught.


Leaving aside the use of “for instance”, which has to do with the use of language, I didn’t give an example of “Christ’s acting violently,” but of Christ manifesting His wrath actively. As I’ve already pointed out, I don’t believe God ever acts violently, because to me the main aspect in an act of violence is the motivation of the person who performs it.


I didn’t use “nice” as a synonym for “kind.” I mentioned the Portuguese word for you to be sure as to what I meant. Are you aware of the light-years difference between “Deus é bom” and “Deus é bonzinho”? Someone who is “bonzinho” will do everything that you wish, or will never do anything which may displease you.


Tom, how can you say that? If on the Day of Judgment the glory of God “slays the wicked”, obviously God slays them. Sin is the reason why sinners are destroyed; God’s glory is the agent through which they are destroyed. They are so out of harmony with Him that His glory is to them a consuming fire. It's not sin that consumes them, but God’s glory is what consumes sin and, therefore, consumes them. So, at least in one occasion God has at least 50% of the responsibility for the death of sinners, since what kills them is a combination of sin + the sin-consuming glory of God.


As I said in previous discussions, I don’t see how God’s act of removing His protection would be any better than directly removing life. Using also previous examples, in which way is opening the floodgates of a dam worse than removing the reinforcement system of the dam, causing it to break?
Or how would you exempt from all responsibility the person who removes the net from bellow someone who jumps from a building because the person who jumped wished to die and asked that the net be removed? You can say that the person who removes the net is not violent, but would someone believe that that person is not cruel?

Seem that way to me too.


Tom, I have a very analytical mind (probably too much so). Your logic here doesn't add up for me. What should I do? You have an apparent logical contradiction between these two concepts:

1) "all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son"
2) "nothing can be known of God which was not revealed by the life and character of His Son"

...and this concept:

3) "Other things may also reveal what Christ revealed"

Basically, (and I know you are not meaning to do this) you are speaking out of two sides of your mouth, first saying that it is impossible to learn of God outside of Jesus' life and character, and then claiming that it is possible. I understand that you mean that it is not possible to learn more than what Jesus revealed during His life, but that is not what you are saying. This is what creates confusion here, and it appears very easy for someone to misunderstand what you are trying to say.

It would be very easy, based on your post here, for me to believe that you feel only Jesus' life can show God to us, nothing more, nothing less. This is why MM and some of the others of us have questioned you as to whether you believe only the Gospels, or whether or not we have any chance at knowing God, since we are not living during Jesus' lifetime.

Yet, at the same time, you seem reticent to accept that Jesus was as fully revealed to Moses as during His earthly ministry. So, it does seem that you are trying to twist this to make it say what was not meant. This unequal application of Mrs. White's statement has become, then, the basis for (at least my own) misunderstanding of what you believe, and it would appear that you have a very narrow view of things (which I do not now believe) due to your application of the quote.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.