What is the inevitable result of sin? Is it 1) emotional anguish ending in death, 2) capital punishment, or 3) something else?


The "this" in the quote above is in reference to "I will destroy thee". The "terrible light of His presence" will "destroy", "exterminate" sin and sinners. ". . . His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them."


The inevitable result of sin is the "inevitable retribution" of God's wrath. It involves mental and physical suffering ending in eternal death. It is the outworking of capital punishment.

Does Ellen White contradict herself in the following two passages?

Still the loyal angels urged him and his sympathizers to submit to God; and they set before them the inevitable result should they refuse: He who had created them could overthrow their power and signally punish their rebellious daring. No angel could successfully oppose the law of God, which was as sacred as Himself. They warned all to close their ears against Lucifer's deceptive reasoning, and urged him and his followers to seek the presence of God without delay and confess the error of questioning His wisdom and authority. {PP 40.2}

"I will destroy thee, O covering cherub" . . . At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2}

In the preceding paragraph, EGW explains that it is not an arbitrary ("depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law" Webster's) act of power on the part of God that destroys the wicked, but it is the result of their own choice (which she repeats nine(!) times in a row). This is the "this" which the angels did not understand.

She goes on to clarify this by saying had God left Satan to reap the results of his sin, he would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that his death was the inevitable result of sin. This is the same idea. It would have appeared to have been an arbitrary act of power on the part of God as opposed to the result of his choice, something God had "left" him to. Clearly God could not have left Satan to something He Himself was causing.

Regarding the contradiction question, where is it you see the possible contradiction?

Tom, in the "preceding paragraph" she quoted the Bible where God says, "I will destroy thee". Then she goes on to explain how God will "destroy" sinners by saying, His "very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them." It is "the terrible light of His presence", His glorious presence, that will cause them to suffer and die. As you say, there is nothing arbitrary about it. What is clear to me is sin alone is not what causes them to suffer and die.

The following two insights seem contradictory:

1. The loyal angels "set before them the inevitable result" - "He who had created them could overthrow their power and signally punish their rebellious daring."

2. "I will destroy thee, O covering cherub" . . . At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this.

In the first quote, the loyal angels explained to the disloyal angels the inevitable results of sin, namely, God will punish them. In the second quote, the loyal angels did not understand that God would destroy the disloyal angels.

In DA 764, EGW explains that the wicked die as a result of their own choice. She repeats this some 9 times in a row. She contrasts this with the idea that God causes their death by an act of power depending on individual discretion (as of a judge).

She explains that had God "left" Satan to reap what he had sown, he would have perished. If God actually caused Satan do die by setting him on fire, this would hardly make sense.

Also she points out that had God allowed Satan to perish, his death would have been misunderstood. If God actually causes Satan's death by killing Him, this would hardly make sense either.

Who or what condemned sinners to death - the law! Who or what determined their penalty - the law! Who or what is required to enforce their penalty - God! Condemnation is the primary source of suffering. Without it, suffering would be impossible. To choose sin is to choose condemnation and suffering and death. However, death is a blessing. It is relief from suffering. There is, therefore, more to it than merely death.

The consequences of sinning and condemnation is suffering. God protects sinners from succumbing to the results of sinning by shielding them from the radiant firelight of His glorious presence. It is this that causes them to feel intense pain. Yes, sinners initially suffer to a degree each time they sin; but eventually they harden their hearts beyond being able to feel shame or sorrow. When they are resurrected, therefore, they must be punished. Exposure to God's unveiled presence will cause them to suffer according to their sinfulness.

This is the reason that the wicked are angered by the silent examples of the righteous who have done nothing to offend them. When they see the righteous, their conscience is pricked, and they suffer. Jesus aptly stated that when we are persecuted in situations like this, the people are not rejecting us, but God. It is God's character that the wicked oppose.

The more "on fire" the Christian, the more ire s/he will draw from the ungodly.

To use an illustration--

In Thailand, every year there is a grand, country-wide, water fight. It takes place on the Thai New Year, April 15, and the days before and after it. Everyone gets wet. In Chiangmai the entire city lines the streets with buckets of water, and trucks loaded with barrels of water cruise down the streets looking for some on the sidelines to douse. Some have special PVC-pipe syringe-like "squirters" that they fill in those barrels and aim more precisely at bystanders or passersby. Most of the participants draw their water from the warm canal, or from some lukewarm tap (April is the height of the Thai "hot season"). However, some of the pickups with barrels of water add ice to their barrels! When someone gets a jolt of ice water, it can radically change the vigor of their "return fire!" The ice-cold temperature contrasts so much with everything else, that it gets immediate attention from all contacted by it...and "furious" might be the right word, although, of course, it is all done in fun!

Similarly, though in a more serious sense, the wicked "suffer" emotionally by any glimpse of the pure character of God. It is not "fun" for them to see what they would rather not see. They love darkness rather than light.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, you seem to be in agreement with Tom in that he thinks it is God's character, not the "terrible light" that radiates from Him, that will cause the wicked to suffer and die according to their sinfulness. Did I misunderstand you?

PS - The nationwide water fight sounds fun. I'd rather be doing that than fighting with the IRS on 15 April.

Sort of. To me, saying "God is love" and saying "God is light" or "The law is a transcript of God's character" are all similar notions: each of these concept pairs is inseparable. "In him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5, KJV); God is always love; and the law is always a transcript of His character.

In the same way, I see the "glory" of God as His character, as illustrated in the law, and also illustrated in the light. Light symbolizes truth, which is but a communication of the law. "Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth." (Psalm 119:142) This "law of truth" (Malachi 2:6) is "light." The law is God's glory. The light is so exceedingly bright, that it consumes darkness (error) as a flame of fire.

In other words, I see the following relationship:

love = law = God's character = God's glory = light = consuming fire

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: (Deuteronomy 6:4)

God is love. (1 John 4:8 & 16)
... love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:10)
The law reveals the attributes of God's character... {DA 762.1}
...we by faith...see God's glory in his law.... {ST, October 17, 1892 par. 5}
...God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5)
For our God is a consuming fire. (Hebrews 12:29)



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I agree with the symbolic application of light. But, do you agree with the literal application? That is, do you agree that the light that literally radiates from God will cause sinners to suffer and die? For example:

"The people perceive that it is the voice of Moses; that, although he is transformed and glorified, he is Moses yet. They tell him that they cannot look into his face, for the radiant light in his countenance is exceedingly painful to them. His face is like the sun; they cannot look upon it. When Moses finds out the difficulty, he covers his face with a veil. He does not plead that the light and glory upon his face is the reflection of God's glory that He placed upon him, and that the people must bear it; but he covers his glory. The sinfulness of the people make it painful to behold his glorified face. So will it be when the saints of God are glorified just previous to the second appearing of our Lord. The wicked will retire and shrink away from the sight, for the glory in the countenances of the saints will pain them. But all this glory upon Moses, all this divine stamp seen upon God's humble servant, is forgotten. {3T 354.3}

Yes, Mike. I believe the "light" is both symbolic and literal. The light on Moses' face was also both symbolic and literal--and the soldiers at Jesus' resurrection were permitted to see some of both as well.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Do you think it is the literal light radiating from God that will cause the wicked to suffer and die?

Possibly. As I have said before, I do not know that we can determine the mechanism of the suffering and death with precision. I do believe, however, that the fire/light of God's presence is what triggers the cleansing from sin--all traces of it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

We know the death that sin causes from the cross.

That is true. However, that is but one of two forms of death in its category, as symbolized by the two goats: the sacrificial one and the scapegoat. Satan's death will be that of the Scapegoat, while Jesus' was that of the Sacrifice.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

On the cross Jesus tasted, consumed, and conquered sin and death. Neither sin nor death took the life of Jesus on the cross. He laid it down voluntarily. Therefore, the cross does not perfectly reflect the experience of the wicked in the lake of fire. For example, the wicked will suffer and die for entirely different reasons. They will not willingly submit to crucifixion. They will not taste, consume, and conquer sin and death, and then triumphantly proclaim, "It is finished."

We know the wicked will die. We the know inevitable result of sin is death. But what you haven't explained is what you think will cause them 1) to suffer and 2) to die. I believe the radiant firelight of God's presence is what will cause them to suffer and to die. I do not believe comprehending the contrast between their character and God's will cause them to suffer and to die. What do you believe?

The scapegoat wasn't burned alive.

I've mentioned both DA 108 and DA 764 to explain this. Also GC 542-543 comes to mind.



That doesn't fit with DA 108, for sure. Actually, all three of the passages I quoted deal with the issue of character; that is, that the character of the wicked is what causes the presence of God to be a consuming fire to them. Your explanations have been "fleshly" ones, that they suffer because they don't have resurrected bodies.



You're saying do not believe comprehending the contrast between their character and God's will cause them either suffer and die, or both? In other words, are you saying you don't believe seeing their own characters in the light of God's character won't cause the wicked any suffering? Would you say this to the judgment as a whole? That is, as the wicked are shown the wrong paths they have taken, the sins they have committed, that they will be lost forever, that they could have had an eternal joyful existence, none of these things will cause them to suffer?

I think these things will cause the suffering which is described in both Scripture and the SOP, and it will proportional, with those having had sinned the most, against the most light, suffering the most as these things are revealed to them.

Why do you think these passages explain what will cause the wicked to suffer and to die?


You used to say revisiting their sins, one at a time, is what will cause them to suffer and die. It seems you think they can be exposed to the radiant firelight of God's unveiled presence without suffering any direct physical effects. You also seem to think any physical effects they might experience will be indirectly caused by the emotional agony they feel as they revisit their sins in judgment.


Any emotional agony they experience will be tainted with sin. It will be so far from what Jesus felt on the cross as to be opposite in the extreme.


The effect of revisiting one sin in judgment would have been enough to cause Adam unimaginable anguish ending in instant death. Unless, of course, God works supernaturally to prevent it. But I hear you saying sinners will be able to endure revisiting millions of sins in judgment before succumbing to death. How will such a thing be possible? Why won't revisiting their first sin cause them to suffer and die? This is something you haven't addressed yet (although you've been asked several times). What dynamics do you think will be at work preventing them from dying prematurely (before they revisit their last sin)?

Also, why does the GC describe them surviving the judgment of their sins so much so that God must rain down and raise up fire to arrest them in their attempts to kill each other? If, as you say, revisiting their sins is what will cause them to die, why are they very much alive afterward? Ellen describes it in the following manner:

DA 108, as I've discusses many times, brings out that the light of the glory of God, which is the revelation of God's character, gives life to the righteous, while slaying the wicked.

GC 542-543 explains in more detail the thought expressed, in regards to how heaven would be torture for the wicked, and their exclusion from heaven is voluntary to themselves. DA 764 also speaks of how the wicked choose to die.

Here's something from Ty Gibson:

"The second death brings the soul face-to-face with the full, ugly reality of one's sin, untempered by any sense of divine mercy. Sin, once committed, is an existing reality in the mind. It is on record in the conscience and must be resolved either by forgiveness or by suffering. Forgiveness is possible only by means of embracing God's merciful love. Suffering is the only alternative to forgiveness, which is why God can only forgive by means of enduring in Himself the suffering inherent in sin.

The weight of sin's terrible condemnation crushes out the vital life forces of the soul. All human beings are sinners. Therefore, all are under condemnation. That condemnation will eventually, ultimately impose an unbearable shame upon those who minds refuse to see the healing reality of God's pardoning love. A conscious sense of God's love and acceptance is the only power capable of neutralizing the power of sin and preventing from destroying the soul.

In order to grasp what the Bible means when it says, "the books were opened...and the dead were judged," try to imagine the unimaginable. Try to imagine what it would be like if you were made perfectly conscious of every sin you've ever committed--every wrong thought and feeling and action; perfect awareness, all at once, with every ugly detail staring at your inner soul with no way of escape. Then add to that horrendous picture an absolute absence of mercy--no concept of forgiveness; no sense of acceptance; no picture of a God who freely and eagerly pardons all sin.

What would that moment in time be like for you? I know what it would be like for me. There are no words adequate to describe the mind-shattering ordeal. Such is the nature of that death which is the full wages paid by sin. The only reason we have never had to face the full potency of our guilt is because the plan of salvation, set into motion by a loving Creator, has erected a veil of mercy in the human conscience to act as a buffer to preserve us from sin's full effect. He has held at bay our suffering by forgiving us at the expense of His own suffering in Christ Jesus.

Revelation 20 pictures the wicked gathered around God's throne. They are judged or made conscious by the books which have chronicled every sin they have every committed. By some divinely chosen method, perhaps a great video-screen-like panorama stretching across the sky, every hardened rebel will the part he or she has played in the great war between good and evil. Every deed of their lives will be etched with vivid clarity upon their mind's eye as with letters of fire. The blazing light of infinite love will clash in their souls with the dark ugliness of sin. The striking contrast will burn with an internal fire hotter and more terrible than any literal flame upon the flesh. (Ty Gibson; See With New Eyes)"



"Radiant firelight" is your idea. I've never seen this expression used in inspiration. Also, it seems to continue the thought you have of the issue being a physical one rather than a spiritual one.



Hopefully the explanation from Ty will help you to understand my view.



And yet the SOP tells us that Christ felt the anguish the wicked will feel.



Why do you think this?



You can read what Ty said, and see if that makes sense.



This is a good question. I'd like to discuss this with Ty sometime. I have a couple of ideas, but I think I'll keep them to myself for the time being.

To recap the general principles I see:

a.The suffering and death which the wicked experience is the result of their sin, as opposed to an arbitrary (as in DA 764, "by individual discretion, as by a judge") process God imposes upon them.

b.Jesus Christ tasted, or suffered, the second death. He felt the anguish the wicked will feel when mercy no longer pleads for the guilty race. He revealed the nature of the second death.

c.Had God left Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished. This statement makes clear that their death is not something God does to them, since one could hardly say God "left" Satan to something He did to him.

d.The principles of kindness, mercy and love are present in the judgment.

e.The judgment is for the benefit of the wicked.

f.The exclusion of the wicked is voluntary with themselves.

g.The wicked so ruin their characters that God's mere presence to them is a consuming fire (Note: it's their character which causes the problem, not their flesh).

Tom,

You profusely deny that God will be so terrible as to use fire on the lost. But here you are advocating worse?

You are trying to ridicule the idea of literal flames in order to impose upon the wicked something hotter and more terrible? And then you have the audacity to tell those of us who believe in real fire that we should never be put into a position of power where someone's punishment would need to be decided? (Nevermind the fact that no suggestion of seeking any such power has ever been made here.)

What kind of "kindness, mercy, and love" would need to be "terrible?"

You seem to put yourself in an unenviable position in this discussion of trying to claim both sides of the argument as your own while at the same time saying each of these sides is incongruent.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

How do you envision the fact God possesses righteous traits and attributes of character causing resurrected sinners to suffer and to die? How does character kill?


Taking a closer look at Ty's insights:

Sin “is on record in the conscience and must be resolved either by forgiveness or by suffering.” How does suffering resolve sin?

“The weight of sin's terrible condemnation crushes out the vital life forces of the soul.” Why doesn’t this kind of suffering happen when we sin?

“A conscious sense of God's love and acceptance is the only power capable of neutralizing the power of sin and preventing from destroying the soul.” Why is it possible to harden our hearts beyond being able to suffer?

“. . . what it would be like if you were made perfectly conscious of every sin you've ever committed”. How will God make this happen? How and why will it be any different than the day they committed them? Why will they suffer so sorely for their sins in judgment but didn’t when they committed them? How will God make them perfectly conscious of every sin in a way that will drastically affect them differently than it did when they committed them?

“The only reason we have never had to face the full potency of our guilt is because the plan of salvation, set into motion by a loving Creator, has erected a veil of mercy in the human conscience to act as a buffer to preserve us from sin's full effect.” Where in the Bible or the SOP is this idea taught? The reason we do not die the instant we sin is because God is mercifully veiling the radiant firelight of His presence. It is this light that will cause the wicked to suffer and to die.

“He has held at bay our suffering by forgiving us at the expense of His own suffering in Christ Jesus.” Where in the Bible or the SOP is this idea taught? Jesus made pardon possible when He paid our sin debt of death; however, He forgives no one until they repent and obey God. Forgiveness benefits no one until they repent and obey God. Only then can they escape the crushing weight of their guilt and shame.

“They are judged or made conscious by the books which have chronicled every sin they have every committed.” Again, how and why will revisiting their sins in judgment affect them differently than when they committed them? Why do you think sin hardened hearts are capable of such suffering?

“The blazing light of infinite love will clash in their souls with the dark ugliness of sin.” Again, what makes you think sin hardened sinners possess the ability to have such an experience?

“The striking contrast will burn with an internal fire hotter and more terrible than any literal flame upon the flesh.” Why do you think a loving God will resurrect sinners knowing they will have such a horrible experience? Also, why do you think they can physically survive such an experience for several days? What prevents them from dying prematurely (before they finish revisiting their sins)?


I’ve quoted many passages that describe the painful effect the radiant light of God has on sinners. Did you read them? “His countenance outshines the dazzling brightness of the noonday sun.”

“The light of the sun will be superseded by a radiance which is not painfully dazzling, yet which immeasurably surpasses the brightness of our noontide. The glory of God and the Lamb floods the Holy City with unfading light. The redeemed walk in the sunless glory of perpetual day.”

“Christ, the Light of the world, veiled the dazzling splendor of His divinity and came to live as a man among men, that they might, without being consumed, become acquainted with their Creator.”

Here's more quotes:


You seem to deny the light radiating from God is literal. The quotes above make it clear that the light radiating from God is very much literal. It would consume the flesh right off sinners were it not veiled.


I think what I wrote above accurately reflects what you believe. Do you agree?


Here’s what she wrote about it:


It sounds like you believe Jesus and resurrected sinners suffer the same agony for the same reasons. Please post an inspired description of the wicked suffering the same agony for the same reasons.


Do you disagree with it? If so, why?


The passage you posted didn’t address this point. Please explain what you believe.


Avoiding this question casts your concept in an unfavorable light. It’s a lose end that unravels your theory. Refusing to explain why you think the wicked possess the physical ability to survive revisiting their sins without dying prematurely is another weaknesses of your view.


A. Do you think such suffering would happen if God were not present?
B. Do you think the wicked will suffer the same way and for the same reasons Jesus suffered?
C. The English language allows for the explanation you reject.
D. You wrote, “mercy no longer pleads for the guilty race.”
E. How does it benefit them?
F. They attempt to take New Jerusalem by force.
G. How will their character cause them to suffer and to die?

Regarding the questions, there's too many to address. Hopefully what Ty wrote is clear.



Like Raiders of the Lost Ark!



I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're referring to. What Ty wrote accurately reflects my view, which is probably quite a bit clearer than anything your or I could write.

Regarding Christ's feeling the anguish the wicked will feel, she says:



This seems clear to me. She says, "Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race." It doesn't seem to me that anything needs to be added to this.



It would depend upon why you said what you said, which is why I asked you why you thought this.



Why?



Why?



What do you mean by not being present? Do you mean existing like we do today? If so, suffering would exist, because it exists today. Suffering is inevitable where sin is present. One cannot live under the principle of "me first" and not suffer.



As the SOP put it, Christ felt the anguish the wicked will feel when mercy no longer pleads for the guilty race. So Christ felt the anguish they will feel. The reason for feeling this anguish is sin. The reasons are different in that Christ voluntarily took our sin upon Him, whereas the wicked suffer for their own sin.



Not in a logical sense. That is:



In addition, she points out that had God done this, it would not have been clear that Satan's death was due to his sin, which, if things were the way you are thinking (i.e. Satan dies because God kills him) they wouldn't be. So the idea you're suggesting doesn't make sense. There would have been no more misunderstanding had God killed Satan right away than after Christ died. In either case it would have been perfectly clear that God killed him.



I didn't write this. I quoted it. I quoted the other statement as well. One is from GC 542, and the other DA 753.



Good question! Short answer, by making known the truth to them.



Before God's character is revealed to them. The context explains this.



What I quoted from Ty explains this.

I wanted to mention something in regards to the glory of God and light. In the case of Moses, his face was glowing, so much so that it needed to be veiled. This cannot be explained as the effect of a bright light shining on his face, because in this case, as soon as the light which had been shining stopped shining, his face would have stopped reflecting that light. Therefore the light shining from Moses' face was not due to a physical light.

Could you answer just this one question: What kind of "kindness, mercy, and love" would need to be "terrible?"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It seems that the Atonement Models thread went off-topic into areas that are best addressed in this thread. Here is the last off-topic post from that thread


To get to the beginning of that off-topic excursion, click here: Atonement Models

Let's continue that discussion in this thread.

Tom, the quote from Ty you posted did not address my questions. Nor did it explain your point of view in light of my questions. I still have no idea what you think will cause resurrected sinners to suffer and to die. You seem to be saying comprehending the contrast between their character and God's is what will cause them to suffer and to die. If so, why do you think they are capable of comprehending this contrast? And, why do you think it will result in suffering and death? Also, why do you think they will be able to survive revisiting their sins without dying prematurely? What will prevent them from dying after revisiting their first sin?

PS - If you're going to insist Ty's quote explains your view and answers my questions you owe it to the rest of us to address the following concerns:

What?

This is too much, MM. Try asking a couple of questions, please, and I'll address those. Do you not understand what Ty was saying?

Am I to presume you do not have an answer for why you believe what you believe on this point? or am I to presume my question is so muddled as to render it unintelligible?

Perhaps I can rephrase slightly:

What "kindness, mercy, and love" do you see in Ty's statement? "The blazing light of infinite love will clash in their souls with the dark ugliness of sin. The striking contrast will burn with an internal fire hotter and more terrible than any literal flame upon the flesh. (Ty Gibson; See With New Eyes)"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I am merely responding to what you posted. I don't think it's too much to ask you to address the questions your post stimulated. Ty's quote does not clearly explain things. It begs the questions I posted. If the insights he presented mean anything at all then they are worth studying. If not, why bother posting it?

PS - The questions above deal with the crux of the matter. Refusing to address them hinders any real discussion and any hope of understanding your view.

I had no idea what you were talking about until you explained it. Ty writes, "The blazing light of infinite love will clash in their souls with the dark ugliness of sin." This is similar to the following, "By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them."

Ty is arguing that what the wicked suffer is a natural consequence of their sin, not a punishment God arbitrarily imposes upon them. If God were imposing a cruel punishment upon the wicked, such as by burning them alive, that would not be exercising the principles of mercy, kindness and love, but Ty is suggesting that it is God's love which causes their suffering. Their suffering is caused by what their own sin has done to their character.

You asked 14 questions, MM. If you'll pair that down to a couple, I'd be happy to respond.

However, if you don't understand what Ty wrote, I don't think you'd understand what I said either, as he explains the concepts more clearly than I do.

As we know, "the wages of sin is death." The more sinful a person is, the more out-of-tune with God. How is it, then, if "sin kills," that the greater the sinfulness, the greater the duration of their punishment? The opposite should be true, no?

If sin were like a bacteria, for example, the heavier the infestation the quicker the demise. Why do you believe the opposite will actually be the case for the lost? What determines the length of their judgment?

BTW, from my perspective it might be more precise to say "Their suffering is determined by what their own sin has done to their character."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The more sin, the more suffering when that sin is revealed.



It's not like a bacteria. Sins consist of thoughts and decisions one has made. When these are brought to light, suffering results. The more there is to bring to light, the more suffering.

Why do you believe the opposite will actually be the case for the lost? What determines the length of their judgment?



You're saying "determined" as opposed to "caused." Yes, this is an area of difference. I see that sin causes suffering and death. You see that God causes these things.

Something I still don't understand is why you think God is capable of burning people alive. His character was revealed by Jesus Christ. Do you get the idea Jesus Christ would burn someone alive if that person didn't follow Him? When it was suggested that He do so, He responded, "You know not what spirit you are of." I don't understand why, as soon as the thought that God would burn people alive, was introduced into your mind, you wouldn't immediately reject it. Especially given the counsel we have that the enemy is specifically trying to make God appear to be cruel.

What do you see the role of the righteous to be during the 1,000 years? Do you perceive that they will be determining for how long the lost will burn?

Why, then, doesn’t it happen in the absence of God? Why is the physical presence of God necessary in order for it to happen?


Please post an inspired passage to substantiate this idea.

Tom, I'm pretty sure I understand what you and Ty are advocating. However, I'm asking questions to confirm my suspicions. Here are the questions paired down.

You two seem to be saying resurrected sinners will, as each sin is revisited in judgment, comprehend the contrast between their character and God's. Such experiential knowledge will cause them to suffer and to die. Ty wrote:

1. Sin “is on record in the conscience and must be resolved either by forgiveness or by suffering.” How does suffering resolve sin?

2. “The weight of sin's terrible condemnation crushes out the vital life forces of the soul.” What prevents this from happening the instant we sin?

3. “. . . what it would be like if you were made perfectly conscious of every sin you've ever committed”. How will God make this happen?

4. “The only reason we have never had to face the full potency of our guilt is because the plan of salvation, set into motion by a loving Creator, has erected a veil of mercy in the human conscience to act as a buffer to preserve us from sin's full effect.” Where in the Bible or the SOP is this idea taught?

5. “He has held at bay our suffering by forgiving us at the expense of His own suffering in Christ Jesus.” Where in the Bible or the SOP is this idea taught?

6. “The striking contrast will burn with an internal fire hotter and more terrible than any literal flame upon the flesh.” Why do you think a loving God would permit such a horrible thing to happen?

It's not a physical problem. It's not possible for God to be physically absent.



I'm sure Ty had passages to support what he wrote. Weren't there any quoted?

Not sin, but the record of sin in the conscience. What Ty meant is that the only way to alleviate the suffering that sin would cause by being revealed when God's character of love is made known to the sinner is to have it forgiven. He's saying one of two things will happen: forgiveness or suffering.



In mercy, God doesn't allow this to happen in this lifetime, so there is an opportunity to develop character. It's like when EGW writes that if we had to bear the guilt of our sin it would crush us. Christ bears the guilt of our sin for all, including those who reject Him, during this lifetime, to give the opportunity to develop character. DA 764 speaks about this as well. After developing character, in the judgment people receive the results of their choice. To those who have rebelled against God, He is a consuming fire, and His glory (character of love) destroys them, as Ty explained.



"The Great Controversy" talks about this, in the part right after the wicked stop attacking the city as Jesus Christ is lifted up.



Well, here's the answer to your question #2! Please refer to what Ty wrote for his support of the idea.



Please refer to what Ty wrote for his support of the idea.



How would He prevent it? People receive the results of their choice. He could only prevent it by not allowing people to receive what they have chosen. Free will is very important to God.

Tom, thank you for answering my questions. I hear you saying the loving attributes of God's character will slay sinners. They will suffer more pain and agony than if they were burned alive. This limited explanation, however, does not address the following concerns:

1. Why are the wicked able to suffer unimaginable pain and agony in judgment whereas before they weren't? Who or what will make the difference?

2. Since one sin is enough to cause death, why are the wicked able to endure revisiting millions of sins without dying prematurely? Who or what will prevent them from dying before they revisit their last sin?

3. What role does literal fire play in the "punishment" of the wicked? See quote below.


In light of this passage, what are "the fearful consequences of sin"? And, what role does literal fire play?

You're welcome.



No, I'm not saying this.



This says the lost "place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire." So I would not put the onus on God, but on the wicked. Indeed, this is the whole point of DA 764, which she says 9 times in a row(!) that their destruction is not due to something God does to them, but is a result of their own choice.

The lost do something to themselves which causes them not to be able to stand love. Their own actions is the problem, not love. I would be very hesitant to put this in any way that did not make this point clear.

Regarding suffering pain and agony, I can think of nothing worse than being burned alive for days. I think this would be on the bottom of anyone's choice of how to die. Ty said that the flame would be more terrible. He was speaking of the impact upon the conscience. Emotional pain is different than physical pain. The pain he is talking about is akin to the pain of losing a loved one. If you lose a pain or a child, you'd be willing suffer anything rather than suffer that pain (not so much because of the pain, but because you want your loved one back). This is what I believe Ty was getting at when he talked about the flame burning being a more terrible flame than a literal flame burning.



Because God didn't allow it to happen.



It's being the judgment is the difference.



I answered this.



Literal fire purifies the earth, which includes the dead.

And more life, since the ones with less sin will die sooner. Agreed?

So, are the wicked suffering that now? Is Satan going through that mental anguish now, since he is unrepentant, and God is as omnipresent now as He has ever been.

(Post by Tom from Atonement Models)



What? Sin=light of the glory of God. No, that's not right.

Light = revelation, or truth. Glory = character. The glory of God is His character. The wicked, because of the damage they have done to their own character, are unable to bear the revelation of God's love, which is His character. The meaning of the sentence in question is made clear by the sentences immediately following:



Let's review the quote: "The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked."

Let's look at one of your new quotes: "The glory of Him who is love will destroy them."



God's glory is His character, which is love. If you wish to construe things as a revelation of God's love destroys the wicked, that's fine by me, but it should be clear that the fault is in the sin which has ruined the character of those who have rejected in God's love. There's no reason why the revelation of God's wonderful love should result in death. That's rather enigmatic. It speaks to the sinfulness of sin.



What's the problem here? The love of God? Or the life of rebellion that ruins the character?



The "red above" was speaking of the revelation of God's character. So the idea is that for someone to die, a revelation of God's character is necessary, in addition to the wicked's having ruined their character by sin. Is this correct?

What's the motivation for wishing to lay the responsibility on God for the death of the wicked as opposed to sin? I'm not understanding this. What's the advantage of looking at things this way?

Sin is lethal. We need to be saved from it.

OK, I think we're starting to agree. But to make sure, let's review the quote: "The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked." In that sentence, did the SOP say that "sin" will "slay the wicked"? Or is it God's glory that will "slay the wicked"?

The problem is sin. I have not seen anyone here teach otherwise.

The difference is that you teach that the solution - the complete eradication of sin - is also sin, while there are those of us who say that it is God.


Consider the sinner who has irrevocably chosen selfishness over God's character. If he were to live forever in a place where God rules, where God's love is the law, where God's holiness is the standard, would he consider that torture? Yes, he would.

Would he prefer to die instead? Yes, he would.

And so, in perfect love and infinite mercy, at unspeakable pain to Himself, God will give them death. The destruction of the sinner simultaneously speaks of the sinfulness of sin and of the love of God.

Hence, God's glory revealed will destroy sinners. That's sounding very familiar by now.

That is correct, as evidenced by the fact that Satan knew God's character, chose to sin, but was not destroyed. Six thousand years later, he still knows God's character, still sins, and he's still not destroyed. In spite of all that sin running through the veins of the master sinner, he's still not dead.


I think it's a difference of hermeneutics. I just want to look at the evidence, and try to figure out a system that makes sense of them all. Your way, if I understand you correctly, is to have a system that makes sense to you, then make the evidence fit your paradigm. Therefore, you are confused about my "motivation" for my beliefs, as if I am trying to steer it one way or the other.

Remember your problem debugging your code because you kept seeing the number that you were expecting to see, instead of the wrong number that was actually there? I was a QA Engineer for a while; I look for what's actually there, and deal with the ramifications later. The "motivation" is to come up with a paradigm that explains all phenomena, not just the ones I like.

". . . His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them." Why is His presence necessary? How will His glory destroy them?


How did He prevent it? How does He allow it?


Why?


I don't recall your answer. Please restate it here.


The quotes doesn't portray it that way. Instead, literal fire engulfs the planet while the wicked are alive. What effect does it have on the wicked before they die?

Arnold, do you envision God's presence causing the wicked to suffer and to die according to their sinfulness? If so, what dynamics will be at work?

Or, do you think comprehending the contrast between their character and God's will cause them to suffer and to die? If so, what dynamics will be at work?

Me too.



??? That doesn't make any sense.



I don't see any advantage in looking at things the way you want to. I guess it's like looking at a half-empty/half-full glass. You choose to look at things in a way that makes God responsible for the destruction of sinners, even though there is tons of evidence that sinners are responsible for their own destruction. I'm not seeing the advantage of the "half-empty" way (or "half-full" if you prefer).

It seems to me that God is entirely innocent of everything having to do with sin, including its existence and demise. I don't belie God every strayed or will stray from the principles of His kingdom, such as not using force.



I'm sure you try to do this, but it's hard to believe you're perfect, and have never missed certain things because of results you were expecting to see. If not, our company has an opening for a QA/Risk Management Department head (this is true).



Do you think God doesn't care at all what we think He is like? This is what I'm understand you to be saying here. It doesn't matter what we think about God's character, if it's immoral, or cruel, or whatever.

My heart melts at the wonderful beauty revealed by Jesus Christ is regards to God's character. IIRC, the SOP tells us that it is sin to consider the cross and not be moved. Our hearts are so hard, they needed to be melted by God's love. Otherwise we won't care about others, and continue to treat them poorly, without even realizing what we're doing. We need the love of Christ revealed to us, and manifest in our hearts. This happens as God's love is revealed through the beauties of His character, and we are moved to respond to that love.

God is everywhere.



This was explained in the Ty quote (the part about the vital forces).

Please remember that the problem is spiritual and not physical, when considering God's glory and presence.



Because the judgment is when the truth is revealed to the lost.



I can't remember what I said. Please try doing a search on "millions" and it should come up.

Basically I think I said something about you're looking at this differently than I do. You seem to have a very physical concept of things. I believe the problem is a spiritual one, where the wicked, after having the truth revealed to them, voluntarily choose to be excluded from heaven. GC 541-543 would be good to look at in this regard.



The quotes do portray it that way. DA 764, GC 541-543, DA 108 all make clear the fire which destroys the wicked cannot be a literal fire. DA 764 says "the glory of God will destroy them." That couldn't be clearer. God's glory is not literal fire. It's His character. The quote itself makes it clear that this is what's being referred to, as it says "the glory of Him who is love." That God is love has to do with His character. It's not radiant firelight that's love, but God who is love.

Then every sinner everywhere should be consumed. Ellen wrote: “To sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire. If you choose sin, and refuse to separate from it, the presence of God, which consumes sin, must consume you. {MB 62.1} Why isn’t the presence of God causing sinners to die now?


Ty essentially said comprehending the character of God is what will kill the wicked. Is that what you believe?


Sinners are judged according to the truth they rejected. If God waits until judgment to reveal the truth to them how can they be judged by it?


You didn’t address my questions. Suffering and death are, by the way, very much physical aspects of judgment. Yes, there is a spiritual aspect, which you admit results in physical suffering and death. So, please answer my questions.


Nowhere in the following description of fire is the word “glory” used:


“Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. . . The earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire.”

This “fire” is present during “the judgment and perdition of ungodly men”. On a planet engulfed in “flames” the “wicked receive their recompense”. The idea that this “fire” is symbolic of God’s character is a hard sell. I believe God's radiant firelight will be present; however, literal from above and from below will also be present. I don't see how you can disagree.

It's not the judgment now.



I agree with what Ty wrote. I don't think he said what you said, however.



People know enough to make decisions, but there are things people don't know now which will be revealed later.



You can read what I posted earlier for more detail.



The spiritual involves the physical, since man is an indivisible being, but the issues are primarily spiritual, not physical, and the causes of the suffering and death is primarily spiritual, not physical.



It's the other way around. There is a physical aspect, but primarily the problem is spiritual.



More evidence that the glory which destroys the wicked is not literal fire.



My point exactly. The glory of God is not literal fire. Since it is the glory of God which will destroy the wicked, and the glory of God is not literal fire, it's not literal fire which destroys the wicked.



"Firelight" is never used in the SOP in this context.

She says the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. She says the glory of God is His character. The next sentence refers to Christ as the revealer of God's character. She says the glory of Him who is love will destroy them. This is all speaking of character, not literal fire.

She also writes that force is not a principle of God's kingdom, that rebellion would not be overcome by force. She says that love and truth are the prevailing powers of God's government.

If God were to destroy the wicked by burning them alive, an arbitrary (as used in DA 764; Webster's primary definition) act of power, this would be contrary to her assertion that rebellion is not overcome by force.

Also, as I've explained quite a number of times, the following would make no sense:



If God destroys the wicked by killing them, this paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, you can't leave someone to a fate that you yourself are causing them. Secondly, there would be nothing to misunderstand if God is actually causing their death. That the actual cause of their death would be misunderstood as an act of God is her whole point. This is why the cross was necessary (one of the things it accomplishes), to make known the nature of the death which is the result of sin.

This is the context of her comments. You're explanation of things has no connection to the cross. You're not seeing the connection to the cross, which is why you don't mention it. The cross is the great truth around which all other truths cluster.

The key point to consider in this subject is God's character. What is God like? Only by knowing God can we hope to understand the doctrines of Scripture, which is why understanding the connection to the cross is so important, because nothing reveals God's character so clearly as the cross.

So, sin, which sinners have now, is not sufficient to kill them. There is another ingredient - "the judgment" - without which sin does not kill. IOW:

sin + judgment = dead sinner
sin + no judgment = alive sinner

Right?

If God were to have left Satan to reap the full result of his sin, he would have perished, but it would not have been understood that this was the inevitable result of sin. So God is holding off on this until the judgment. At the judgment, God will allow sinners to reap the full result of their sin.

sin + God's allowing sin to have the effect it always would have had, had God not been preventing it = dead sinner.

sin + God's preventing sin to have the effect it always would have had, had God not been preventing it = alive sinner.

If that's the case, then we have:

judgment = God's allowing sin to have the effect it always would have had, had God not been preventing it

Does that sound right to you?

Tom, you still haven't explained what God actually does to prevent sin from killing sinners. But by working backward it is possible to deduce what you seem reluctant to say. Here's how: You say it is the revelation of truth during judgment that will cause sinners to suffer and to die. Therefore, you believe it is the withholding of truth that enables sinners to sin with impunity. But is it fair of God to judge someone on truth He withheld?

PS - I believe sinners are able to sin with impunity simply because God is veiling His radiant firelight. But the moment God stops veiling His radiant firelight it will cause sinners to suffer and to die. Ellen describes it this way:

"If you cling to self, refusing to yield your will to God, you are choosing death. To sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire. If you choose sin, and refuse to separate from it, the presence of God, which consumes sin, must consume you. {MB 62.1}

Since mathematical formulas are popular, I'll post two of my own:

Sin + the absence of God + probation = life

Sin + the presence of God + judgment = death

That's not all the judgment involves, but it does involve that.

Ty spoke of this. He spoke of the impact of the revelation of truth upon the conscience, etc.



I quoted Ty. Please refrain from personal comments.



He doesn't judge someone on truth withheld, of course, but on truth revealed and rejected.

I understand this. You see the problem as a physical one. The wicked have the wrong kind of flesh, so they can't satnd the firelight.

That sounds like God has been actively doing something to keep sinners alive. For example, God has been actively keeping Satan alive all this time, instead of letting sin's fatal effects take hold.

Furthermore, it looks like there has never been a time, since sin entered, when God was not doing this preventive action.

Does all that sound correct?

Yes. DA 764 brings this out.



Yes. If God allowed Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but it would not have appeared that the cause of their death was their own sin. So God had to allow sin to continue for two reasons:

1.So that the principles of sin could be seen (the cross was the ultimate demonstration of this).

2.So that the destruction of Satan and his followers would not be misunderstood as something God was doing to them (e.g. killing them), but as what it is truth was, the reaping of the results of their own choices and actions.

DA 764 explains this.

This brings out that not only is death the inevitable result of sin (DA 764), but so is suffering.



This one brings out that both suffering and death are inevitable results of sin.

You didn't answer the question.


The quote you posted doesn't address the question.


When was the truth revealed and rejected - before or after the resurrection?

If God had not intervened and prevented the inevitable results of sin, sinners would have perished instantly. They would not have lived long enough to sin again and again thus accumulating wrath and compounding their eventual pain and agony in the lake of fire.


Again, the reason there have been more than 6,000 years of sinning and suffering and dying is because God is preventing the inevitable results of sin, namely, death. Remember, death is the end of suffering. Preventing death, therefore, prolongs suffering. It also enables sinners to accumulate wrath and thereby compound the suffering they will eventually experience in the lake of fire.

I don't know what point you're wishing to make. Is it that God is responsible for suffering? (This is in response to the post immediately above this one).

Do you agree God is preventing sinners from dying the instant they sin? If so, how does He do it? What does He do to prevent it?

Tom, please don't overlook 120581.

First two, please consider what Ty wrote. Last one, what truth are you talking about? If it's the truth the lost are judged regarding, that's truth revealed to them before the resurrection.

As I've explained, EGW says the following:



Christ bears our guilt.

Where does Ellen say Jesus' bearing our guilt is what prevents us from dying the instant we sin? Also, does it mean sinners do not experience guilt when they sin? And, will guilt kill resurrected sinners in the lake of fire? If so, is it a form of takutsubo cardiomyopathy? In other words, do you think the wicked will die of emotional anguish? If not, what do you think will cause sinners to die?

Truth or guilt? Which one will kill them? And how?


I did. He didn't say anything about it in the quote you posted.


I merely repeated what you wrote. What truth are you talking about?


Why didn't it cause them to experience the physical pain and mental agony you describe before the resurrection?

MB 116. It's the existence of guilt that is crushing. Without any sin, there would be no guilt.



Not fully. This only happens at the judgment. Christ experienced this on the cross.



I have no desire to go beyond what's been revealed.



Truth and guilt aren't mutually exclusive; they go together. Ty spoke of the how.



When you've been convicted of sin, wasn't there agony and pain involved?

Tom, the inevitable result of sin is suffering and death. The absence of God prevents it. The suffering and death we experience now is not the inevitable result of sin. It is the inevitable result of the absence of God and the tree of life. The inevitable result of sin will be realized during judgment when sinners are exposed to the unveiled radiant light of God's presence. Divine light will consume and destroy them with their sins. "The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked."

I have no idea what you think will cause the wicked to suffer and to die.

MM, sin is based on selfishness. You can't live selfishly and not suffer. This has nothing to do with any tree.

Ellen wrote:

There was no possible hope for the redemption of those who had witnessed and enjoyed the inexpressible glory of heaven, and had seen the terrible majesty of God, and, in presence of all this glory, had rebelled against Him. There were no new and wonderful exhibitions of God's exalted power that could impress them so deeply as those they had already experienced. If they could rebel in the very presence of glory inexpressible, they could not be placed in a more favorable condition to be proved. There was no reserve force of power, nor were there any greater heights and depths of infinite glory to overpower their jealous doubts and rebellious murmuring. Their guilt and their punishment must be in proportion to their exalted privileges in the heavenly courts. {Con 21.2}

Fallen man, because of his guilt, could no longer come directly before God with his supplications; for his transgression of the divine law had placed an impassable barrier between the holy God and the transgressor. But a plan was devised that the sentence of death should rest upon a Substitute. In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Thou shalt surely die." And the flowing of the blood from the victim would also signify an atonement. There was no virtue in the blood of animals; but the shedding of the blood of beasts was to point forward to a Redeemer who would one day come to the world and die for the sins of men. And thus Christ would fully vindicate His Father's law. {Con 21.3}

1. The moment angels rebelled against God was the moment they sinned.
2. The moment they sinned was the moment there was nothing God could do to save them.
3. Death must happen in consequence of sin.
4. Jesus paid our sin debt of death.
5. His death satisfied the death demands of law and justice.
6. His death vindicated the death demands of law and justice.

Sin-seared sinners sin with impunity all the time. They are unable to feel shame or guilt. "He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." "Having their conscience seared with a hot iron."

In the exercise of the longsuffering of God, He gives to nations a certain period of probation, but there is a point which, if they pass, there will be the visitation of God in His indignation. He will punish. The world has been advancing from one degree of contempt for God's law to another, and the prayer may be appropriate at this time, "It is time for thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void thy law" (Ps. 119:126). {3SM 396.3}

The forbearance that God has exercised toward the wicked, emboldens men in transgression; but their punishment will be none the less certain and terrible for being long delayed. "The Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act." Isaiah 28:21. To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Ezekiel 33:11. The Lord is "merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, . . . forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." Exodus 34:6, 7. While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some He must cut off those who have become hardened in sin. "The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. And the very fact of His reluctance to execute justice testifies to the enormity of the sins that call forth His judgments and to the severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor. {PP 628.1}

What Ty wrote touches on this. God, in mercy, allows Christ to bare our guilt. As EGW points out, if we had to bear our own guilt, it would crush us. She never says that Christ only has to bear the guilt of "good" people.

During this lifetime, people can "shut off" the voice of God. People keep busy, and choose not to think about unpleasant things. When the Holy Spirit comes, He is sent away. The Holy Spirit is a gentleman, not forcing His way. Eventually the heart can become so hardened, a person cannot respond to be saved.

In the judgment, the truth will be revealed to all. The significance of each sin will be made known. GC speaks about this. The cleansing of the temple gives a foreshadowing of this, where the guilty could not bear the gaze of Christ, making known their sin, as they fled in fear.

Ty brought out how the beauty of God's character makes known the ugliness of our own. Our own ugliness is something we cannot bear, apart from the Balm of Gilead. In this life, we can hide our sin, but in the judgment, everything will be revealed.

Your comment didn't seem to respond to my point, which is that one cannot live selfishly and not suffer. As the SOP brings out, wherever there is sin, it is inevitable that suffering and death will be present as well.

Suffering and death are part and parcel to sin. That are not things which God arbitrarily inflicts upon people who are selfish. Selfishness brings its own misery.

Except where Ty backs up his ideas with inspired passages from the Bible or the SOP I am not impressed to believe him.


According to Ellen, Jesus bears our guilt and burdens when we give them to Him. Otherwise, we must bear them on our own. Which means the wicked bear them now without being crushed to death. Listen:

In these words Christ is speaking to every human being. Whether they know it or not, all are weary and heavy-laden. All are weighed down with burdens that only Christ can remove. The heaviest burden that we bear is the burden of sin. If we were left to bear this burden, it would crush us. But the Sinless One has taken our place. "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53:6. He has borne the burden of our guilt. He will take the load from our weary shoulders. He will give us rest. The burden of care and sorrow also He will bear. He invites us to cast all our care upon Him; for He carries us upon His heart. {DA 328.5}


True. But it also proves they can sin with impunity, that sinning does not cause them to suffer shame or guilt. Yes, some sins result in sorrow. However, most people sin with no ill effect. True, they are missing out on the joy of being like Jesus, but in this case ignorance is, as it were, bliss.


Quotes please.


Please post inspired quotes to back up Ty's point.

Also, is the Balm of Gilead preventing the evil angels from suffering and dying? If not, who or what is? What will change that all of sudden they will be able to suffer the pain and agony you describe?


See my comments above.

That's too bad. I think Ty does an excellent job explaining the fundamental principles of sin/pardon/the judgment, etc. Ty doesn't use the SOP in the book I referenced, as its audience includes non-SDA's, but his book has a lot of Scripture. He uses it similar to Ellen White, in the context of developing well reasoned arguments based on principles.



No, this isn't right. We owe all to Christ.

Waggoner explained this, in addition to Ellen White:



From the SOP:



Our position as SDA's has never been that Christ has only borne the iniquity of believers.

The DA quote supports her idea in MB 116:



This is an awful thought. Nobody can sin with impunity.



This is totally wrong. I don't know how you could think such a thing. No one can sin with no ill effect. How could you even think this is possible?

What is the principle upon which sin is based? It's selfishness. How can one act selfishly without any ill effect?







This really shouldn't be something one should need to prove with quotes. By our own life's experience, we know that sin and selfishness have ill effects -- always! I don't know how you could assert such a thing that one can sin with no effect.



Not sure of your point here. Sinning with no ill effect is bliss?



What you called the panoramic view, or something like that. Last chapter of "The Great Controversy." Also the DA chapter on the cleansing of the chapter, the first time.



What point is it that you are in doubt regarding?



I don't understand your thinking here. DA 764 brings out that if God permitted Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would perished, but it would not have been apparent that this was the inevitable result of sin. Obviously, from this, we can conclude two things:

1.God is preventing Satan and his followers from perishing by not having them reap the full results of sin.
2.Reaping the full results of sin is not something God does to the wicked, but is a result of their own choice (which point DA 764 also makes explicitly, several times).

Tom,

How well do you know Ty and how long have you known him? Just curious.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't know Ty personally well at all. I've met him once or twice, and had some passing words, and that's it. I've known of him since about 1992 I think.

His books have made a big impression upon me, especially "See With New Eyes" and "Shades of Grace." There are a couple of things I see differently than he does, but his overall concept of what the Plan of Salvation is about resonates with me.

Ty has come a long way. My first impressions of him were somewhat mixed. His theology seems to have become more in tune with the Bible as the years have gone by. He has always been filled with genuine zeal in the Lord's work. This is good. In the beginning of his ministry, the zeal was sometimes misplaced. He began as an independent ministry in tune with Hope International, and some other tithe-accepting, Adventist-church-is-apostatizing type of peripheral Adventists. He later drew the ire of some of the other self-supporting ministries by making a clean break away from that, and choosing not to accept tithe anymore, recognizing the validity of the church organization.

I attended some of the Hope International camp meetings in north-eastern Washington in the late 80's - early 90's. Ty and James were still quite young, fresh converts to Adventism from a very worldly life (as you may hear them tell from time to time). The camp meetings were held on the same grounds where they were just beginning to make a publishing shop for printing pamphlets to send abroad. The camp meetings were held in the out-of-doors, as there was not room indoors for the group of people gathered. It was not large...maybe 60-120 people? Memory fades after 20 years, but it was a small group, and all seemed to be eager to study the Bible. It was probably as near to an "old-fashioned" camp meeting as one might get, and the seating was about the same as Ellen White's day. But the messages preached had an air of sensationalism at that time, sometimes implying a difference to the teachings of the church.

James and Ty have settled down much since then. I'm not sure, but I think they may have still been single back then. Anyhow, I do appreciate all of what Ty and James have tried to do in their work for the Lord. Nevertheless, I do not hold their interpretations of scripture to be infallible. It is our duty to study for ourselves, and to know the truth for ourselves. For this, we have been given the Bible and Ellen White, by God. All others must be compared with these inspired sources.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Where Ty disagrees with the SOP is where I disagree with Ty. I agree with you, though, that he does an excellent job of explaining his beliefs. However, his ideas come short of saying what actually causes resurrected sinners to die. I’ve asked him to complete his thought, but it’s been about 6 months now with no follow up. Maybe I’ll hear back from him this winter?


Here’s what Ellen wrote about it (I’ve inserted numbers):

Whether they know it or not, 1) all are weary and heavy-laden. 2) All are weighed down with burdens that only Christ can remove. 3) The heaviest burden that we bear is the burden of sin. If we were left to bear this burden, it would crush us. But the Sinless One has taken our place. "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53:6. He has borne the burden of our guilt. 4) He will take the load from our weary shoulders. 5) He will give us rest. 6) The burden of care and sorrow also He will bear. 7) He invites us to cast all our care upon Him; for He carries us upon His heart. {DA 328.5}

Here are the numbered sentences with my comments. Do you agree with them?

1. “All are weary and heavy-laden.” Not some, but all.
2. “All are weighed down with burdens that only Christ can remove.” We must give Jesus permission to remove them.
3. “The heaviest burden that we bear is the burden of sin.” All bear the burden of sin.
4. “He will take the load from our weary shoulders.” He will (future tense) not has (past tense) bear our burden of sin when we give Him permission.
5. “He will give us rest.” He will (future tense) not has (past tense) give us rest when we ask.
6. “The burden of care and sorrow also He will bear.” He will (future tense) not has (past tense) bear our burdens when we give Him permission.
7. “He invites us to cast all our care upon Him; for He carries us upon His heart.” He will bear our burdens when we invite Him.


People do it all the time. Remember, the inevitable result of sin is suffering during judgment eventually ending in death. “They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, "according to their works," but finally ending in the second death.” {GC 544.2} No one has had this experience yet. The question is – Why not? Who or what prevents sinners from suffering and dying the moment they sin? I believe it is the absence of the radiant light of God that prevents it. I have no idea what you believe. You seem to think God hasn’t revealed it.


It appears you overlooked what I posted above. Here it is again: “Yes, some sins result in sorrow. However, most people sin with no ill effect.” The sorrow we experience in this lifetime is not the inevitable result of sin. God prevents sinners from suffering and dying the moment they sin. The real result of sin will not be known until judgment. What we experience now pales in comparison to what we will experience during judgment.


Not knowing what you don’t know is, as it were, bliss. How bad can sinners feel about not having something they know nothing about? For example, how bad do people feel who have no idea they are missing out on the blessings of Sabbath-keeping?


I assume you’re referring to the following passage:


1. “As soon as the books of record are opened, and the eye of Jesus looks upon the wicked, they are conscious of every sin which they have ever committed.”
2. “. . . all behold the enormity of their guilt.”
3. “They vainly seek to hide from the divine majesty of His countenance, outshining the glory of the sun . . .”
4. “The wicked are filled with the same hatred of God that inspires Satan; but they see that their case is hopeless, that they cannot prevail against Jehovah.”
5. “Their rage is kindled against Satan and those who have been his agents in deception, and with the fury of demons they turn upon them.”
6. “Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire.”
7. “Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." . . . In the cleansing flames the wicked are at last destroyed”.

According to the passage above, it is “the divine majesty of His countenance, outshining the glory of the sun” that will cause resurrected sinners to suffer during judgment. However, they live long enough after judgment to turn upon one another in fits of rage. God intervenes by raining down fire from above and raising up fire from below. It is then that each sinner suffers in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. Please note that fire enters the picture well after the completion of judgment. In other words, the fire described above is not the internal fire Ty describes.


Where in the Bible or the SOP is it taught that resurrected sinners will realize their characters are ugly in comparison to God’s, and that this revelation will cause them to suffer? It is certainly not taught in the definitive passage I quoted above.


I agree. However, you didn’t answer my questions. In other words, I agree God is preventing evil angels from suffering and dying as the inevitable result of sin. Does God apply the Balm of Gilead? And, what will change that all of sudden they will be able to suffer the pain and agony you describe?

GC, if you're interested in the details of Ty and James I would be willing to discuss them with you privately. I was closely connected to Ty and James between 1982-1990. I used to speak at their campmeetings.

GC, Ty's ideas are much different than they were earlier, in the time period MM is speaking of. What I like especially are his concepts in terms of the importance of God's character, and the destructiveness of sin. Those resonated with me a great deal. Many of his ideas remind me of A. Graham Maxwell's ideas, if you're familiar with him. I don't know if there is any connection there or not; perhaps MM knows.

T: What Ty wrote touches on this.

M: Except where Ty backs up his ideas with inspired passages from the Bible or the SOP I am not impressed to believe him.

T: That's too bad. I think Ty does an excellent job explaining the fundamental principles of sin/pardon/the judgment, etc. Ty doesn't use the SOP in the book I referenced, as its audience includes non-SDA's, but his book has a lot of Scripture. He uses it similar to Ellen White, in the context of developing well reasoned arguments based on principles.

MM:Where Ty disagrees with the SOP is where I disagree with Ty. [/quote]

This is rather a pointless comment. It appears to presuppose, for one thing, that you are can perfectly interpret the SOP, or, at a minimum, that you're a lot better at this than Ty is.



I'd be interesting in what he had to say about this as well.



Yes. However, the burden of sin being spoken of is not the burden of sin the wicked will experience at the judgment, but what we actually experience of sin before we become a Christian. In the case of the MB quote, this is dealing with the burden of sin, or, to use her word, "guilt," that will be borne at the judgment. The context bears this out by speaking of Calvary, and explaining why we should not lessen the guilt of sin.



This never happens. Sin always has a negative impact.

Just think of logically, MM. Sin is predicated on selfishness. Selfishness is a principle which has to have negative effects. It's impossible that this not happen. At a minimum, a person who acts selfishly will hurt himself.



You say to "remember" this, but I don't see the connection between this and your assertion that people can sin with impunity. I think the belief that it is the absence of radiant light is very superficial; it misses the deeper issues involved, trivializes them, in fact. Regarding what I believe, Christ is bearing our sin and guilt. As the SOP points out, if we had to bear this guilt, it would crush us. Christ bears it for us.

I don't understand why you say you have no idea what I believe when you've asked me, and I've told you, as well as quoting the statement that says it.



I don't overlook this; this is what I was responding to. Nobody sins without ill effect. It's impossible to sin with no ill effect. Far from happening to "most people," it happens to no people.



This is true, but in no way implies that people can sin in this lifetime with no ill effect. You could correctly say "with no apparent ill effect" or "with no obvious ill effect" or something like that, but it's impossible for one to sin with no ill effect.



Sin is misery. Sin is based on selfishness, which can only lead to suffering, misery, pain, and death. It's destructive. It's not bliss to be unaware of this.



I don't know Ty's thoughts on this; that is, if he would agree with you or not.



It says they become aware of the sins they have committed, and of the enormity of their guilt. They also realize that things could have been different. Being aware of their sins and the enormity of their guilt is a function of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the light of the glory of God. The revelation of God's character makes known their own.



What are you asking here?



They will be judged. Their sin will be seen in its true bearing.

It may be pointless to you but it is important to me to believe I’m interpreting the SOP correctly.


Quoting Ty, therefore, hasn’t been helpful since his insights do not answer my question – What will cause resurrected sinners to die?


What do think will make the difference? Why will sinners suffer differently in judgment? Why don’t we suffer that way now? I realize you believe God arbitrarily prevents it – but what does He do to prevent it?


Actually, it does happen all the time. Smokers experience a genuine sense of relief and euphoria when they indulge their sin. There is no sense of guilt. You seem to underestimate the hardening effect of the “deceitfulness of sin”. Ellen wrote:

“Like the hard-beaten path, trodden down by the feet of men and beasts, is the heart that becomes a highway for the world's traffic, its pleasures and sins. Absorbed in selfish aims and sinful indulgences, the soul is "hardened through the deceitfulness of sin." Heb. 3:13. The spiritual faculties are paralyzed. Men hear the word, but understand it not. They do not discern that it applies to themselves. They do not realize their need or their danger. They do not perceive the love of Christ, and they pass by the message of His grace as something that does not concern them. {COL 44.2}


Above you wrote, “. . . the burden of sin being spoken of is not the burden of sin the wicked will experience at the judgment”.


There is nothing trivial about being consumed in the presence of the firelight of God. Please explain how the presence of God consumes sin in the following passage: “To sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire. If you choose sin, and refuse to separate from it, the presence of God, which consumes sin, must consume you.” Sin, as you say, is not a sentient being, so how can the presence of God consume it?


The idea that the reason we do not experience crushing guilt when we sin is because Jesus bears it for us is difficult to believe, especially as it relates to evil angels. It assumes sin can be indulged with impunity as if sin is innocuous, which, by the way, is an idea you reject. At any rate, how does our guilt bypass us and end up with Jesus? Without guilt, what motivates us to repent?


How can you believe this and believe we bear no guilt?


Okay. But even Jesus could not live in a world of sin with no ill effect. Had He not returned to heaven He would have eventually died of old age. But what I’m saying is people are able to sin with no ill effect in the sense they feel no shame or guilt. You explain this by saying Jesus bears it for them. I explain it by saying they are sin-hardened.


Not all sinning results in misery or sorrow. For example, how bad do people feel who have no idea they are missing out on the blessings of Sabbath-keeping?


I didn’t ask you for Ty’s response to what I posted above. I am simply saying it doesn’t appear to me Ellen supports the idea revisiting sin in judgment will cause sinners emotional anguish ending in death. It is not clear what you believe since you haven’t explained what you think will cause sinners to die.


Here’s what Ellen wrote:

1. “As soon as the books of record are opened, and the eye of Jesus looks upon the wicked, they are conscious of every sin which they have ever committed.”
2. “. . . all behold the enormity of their guilt.”

She says nothing about God’s character. Nor does she say anything about them comprehending the contrast between their character and His. Why do you think she says nothing about it in this her definitive description of the experience of the wicked during the judgment? Why is it omitted here?


How does God prevent the evil angels from suffering and dying the moment they sin? Does He apply the Balm the Gilead (something you mentioned above)? Does Jesus divert their guilt to Himself?


What prevents them from seeing their sin in its true bearing now? What will they see then that they do not see now?