That's pretty flimsy evidence! Your claim is this:



and your evidence is that I use the word "arbitrary"?

Actually, Ellen White used the word "arbitrary" in the DA quote I provided (DA 764), and I'm simply repeating it, because I think it's accurate.

As I recall, I'm the one who brought out the statements from Jesus regarding the weeping and gnashing of teeth! I'm certainly not disregarding something I myself brought out.

This is how I have understood the situation. If I for instance say that God will judge the wicked by burning them in fire, based for instance on Jesus saying that an unfruitfull tree will be cast in fire, or on Peter writing that God will in the end judge the world in fire as He in anicent days judged it in water. Then you will say something like, 'surely God would do no such thing. Just look at Jesus, never harmed a fly did He'. This is in my opinion in disregard of what we know about Jesus comming in a different mission the first time than the one He will have the second time.

Therefore, when I say "He will administer to each a reward in accordance with their verdict", and you feel the need to qualify it with a "arbitary", I understand you to be saying as follows. My statement means that God will come in glory and in power and finally answer the questions "why does bad things happen to good people and why does good things happen to bad people" by giving rewards of life to those whom are His children, and giving punishments to those whom have rejected Him and spit on His offer to be their Father. God will do each of these by His choise and design. What I understand your objection to mean is that God comes in power and in glory to give eternal life to His children, and outch, the unlucky rebells died in action. Thus that God gives rewards to the saints by design and choise while whatever happens to the rebells is just an unlucky accident on God's part, though not so on the part of those who chose to stay rebells of course.

Therefore, if I have understood your part correctly, there is nothing flimsy in using your word "arbitary" as evidence. Just like the comma in Luke 23:43 it takes a sentence and changes its contents from one thing to something very different.

There's a number of issues to consider here. First of all, I've not disputed that the wicked will be cast into fire, so your first assertion here is wrong. There is no doubt the wicked will be destroyed by fire, and I have asserted this very thing many times. So there's a misunderstanding which is taking place here, and I'm not sure why. You're attributing something to me I've never said, whereas I've said the reverse many times.

Secondly, the issue I've been dealing with is one of *character*. One can perform different missions, which will result in one doing different things, but one's character does not change. I have been arguing that Jesus Christ is a full revelation of God's *character*. Thus God, or Jesus Himself, will not do, nor ever has done, anything which reveals a different character than what Jesus Christ revealed while here with us in the flesh.



I don't think what happens to either the saints or the wicked is arbitrary.



This treats what happens to the righteous. The DA 764 quote treats what happens to the wicked, and points out that their destruction is not due to an arbitrary act of power on God's part, but is rather the result of their own choice. Similarly the rewards of the righteous are not due to an arbitrary act of God, but are the result of their own choice, the result of character.

In Isaiah we read:



God does not change, but is fire for both groups. The wicked, by ruining their character, unfit themselves to abide in His presence. The righteous, by not ruining their character, but rather responding to God's grace and His Spirit, walk righteously and are able to abide in God's presence, and, indeed, desire nothing more than to do so.

From the Spirit of Prophecy:



This presents the same idea. God is not acting differently, arbitrarily favoring one group over another, arbitrarily destroying one group but not another. Rather, one group receives life from the light of God's glory, while the other group is slain by it.

The meaning of "arbitrary" as I am using the word (and as Ellen White was using it in the quotes I cited) is Webster's primary definition for it, which is:





Again, the use of the word "arbitrary" is not mine, in regards to both the righteous and the wicked, but borrowed by me from Ellen White, whom I believe was using the word properly and accurately. Also, it does not appear to me that you have understood my position correctly. I hope this post will help in that regard.

I think, rather than make accusations like this:



it would be better to *first* understand what the position with which you are finding fault actually is.

In that case, what is your disagreement with Mike and Rosangela all about? Hot air?So what character did Jesus reveal on earth? It is popular these days to think of Jesus as the teddy bear saviour. Hugg him when you feel bad and everything will be all right. Is this His true character? What would you suggest?I notice that in Peters version, not only humans but all of earth will be burned clean by this fire. You can argue that God's presence will burn away sin, but to say that God's mere presence would cause sulphuric acid to disappear from our lakes and heavy metals to disapear from our farm soil and our pesticides to disapear from everywhere between the two poles is different. (And considering the flood thread, you would be arguing that God's presence would burn away the thorns on roses and all the thistles in the world while leaving the rest of the plants unharmed). 10Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel.
11"I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;
12but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

41"The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness,
42and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

49"So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous,
50and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless.
13"Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
14"For many are called, but few are chosen."

In each parable or other teaching, God is active in what is going on. The sons of Israel do not want to be cast out, the stumbling blocks and the lawless ones do not want to make closer aquintance with the furnace of fire, the man did very much want to participate in the wedding feast. If I take your sentence above and remove the word "arbitarily", then its direct opposite becomes true.

"God is acting differently, favoring one group over another, destroying one group but not another. "
I told you what your position looks like from my vantage point. Now I think that maybe we are not talking about the same thing at all, when the surface coating is removed.

No, Thomas, and there's no need for sarcasm. We've all three written quite a lot on this, so you could read it and see.

My take on things is that I don't see a lot of difference between Rosangela's position and mine. I see a great deal of difference between MM's position and mine, and between MM's position and hers. Rosangela views her position as being between MM's and mine. MM hasn't voiced his opinion on this.

The thing that I must strenuously disagree with is the idea that God will supernaturally keep the wicked alive so that he can burn them to make them suffer in punishment for their sins.

Another issue that has been discussed (regarding which both MM and Rosangela disagree with me) has to do with whether the punishments of the wicked are natural consequences or are imposed upon them by God. I view them as natural consequences. Rosangela seems to view them as imposed, although when you get down to the nitty gritty of what actually happens to the wicked, it seems to me that we are in agreement.



I'm not seen a Teddy Bear Savior being suggested by anyone. Where have you seen this? Can you quote something?

To give a brief answer regarding the character that Jesus revealed, I would say take a look at how He treated His enemies.



I agree with this. John seems to say the same thing.



I haven't suggested this, but Rosangela has (or something similar) and her ideas seem reasonable to me.



You seem to have very confused ideas in regards to what I'm saying. I don't know why. Why do you think I would argue such a thing as you are suggesting? Rather than just heap up accusations one upon another, perhaps you could form some sort of argument or foundation for the things you are claiming. Like, for example, quote something I wrote, and make some sort of argument, with steps of reasoning, and the there would be something with some meat that I could respond to.

Failing that, all I can do is comment that you seem to be confused as to what I'm saying.



These are good points, and will take some time to address adequately. I'll try to do so later tonight.



Your telling me what my position looks like from your vantage point is well and good. I have absolutely no problem with your not agreeing with me. However, to write something like this:



is completely uncalled for, especially without any evidence for such an accusation.

Have you read Bonhoeffers "Dicipleship"? The contrasts that he paints in this book might illuminate some on this question. It was previously argued that God did not create thorns and thistles but that these were a consequence of sin. If they are not part of God's creation but a result of sin, then naturally they would have to be removed just like all other things caused by sin. My view that God created roses with thorns and thistles was challenged then, but maybe things are different now.
Look, to provide you with a full case of this, I would have to read the discussions you have had with others on this topic one or two years back. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do such a laborous work with less than a good payment for my efforts.

I'm not really following what this has to do with anything, but I agree with EGW's comments on this:



This makes perfect sense to me.



Just don't make groundless accusations, and you can save yourself work. If you do make an accusation that is without merit, admit you were wrong, and retract your statement. To say you're too lazy to back up an accusation like this is not a reasonable course of action. If you just avoid accusations in the first place, that avoids the whole issue.

One of the basic principles in interpreting a parable is that a parable is given to make some specific point, and the rest of the parable should not be used to make theological arguments. For example, we have the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The point of this parable had to do with there being consequences in the hereafter to one's actions in this life. There are those who would prove that the soul is immortal because of this parable, but that is not a proper interpretation.

Similarly, in the parables that you cite, the point is that there are consequences in the hereafter to one's actions in this life.

I agree with your point that God is active in the judgment, and that the parable teaches this. After all, it is God who resurrects the wicked, so it is pretty obvious that God is actively involved.

The question I have been raising has to do with whether the punishments that befall the wicked are imposed or not, and I don't think the parables you cited can be properly cited to support this point.

I would once again bring up Isaiah 33:14, 15 which brings out that the "everlasting burnings" is God Himself. As Ellen White points out, these everlasting burnings ("the light of the glory of God" are her actual words) impart life to the righteous, while slaying the wicked. Thus it is clear that the death of the wicked is caused not by some imposed action by God, but as a consequence of their own decisions.

Yes, parables teach specific points. I would like to point out, that the quoted passages are specificly from the part in the end where Jesus sums up what he is teaching. This is especially apparent in this case:

49"So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous,
50and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus tells a parable and then says the quote above. This is not a peripherical point, it is The point of the parable. No, the point is not simply a vague comment on there being consequences for what one does. It is much more specific into the nature of the consequences than that. There will be fire involved, and people in the fire will be suffering. That there will be suffering is the common thread in all of these examples. We can argue that immortality of the soul is peripherical to the Lazarus parable, but had this been something Jesus had returned to regularily, then our case would have been much, much weaker, maybe nonexistant. And this is where paradigms come in. You chose to see the parables as not supporting an imposed judgement while many others chose to see them as supporting an imposed judgement, all based on what presuppositions one brings to it. We have come another full round in this but I predict that you will deny this being the case this time aswell. Let me then bring up Isaiah 2:
12For the LORD of hosts will have a day of reckoning
Against everyone who is proud and lofty
And against everyone who is lifted up,
That he may be abased.
13And it will be against all the cedars of Lebanon that are lofty and lifted up,
Against all the oaks of Bashan,
14Against all the lofty mountains,
Against all the hills that are lifted up,
15Against every high tower,
Against every fortified wall,
16Against all the ships of Tarshish
And against all the beautiful craft.
17The pride of man will be humbled
And the loftiness of men will be abased;
And the LORD alone will be exalted in that day,
18But the idols will completely vanish.
19Men will go into caves of the rocks
And into holes of the ground
Before the terror of the LORD
And the splendor of His majesty,
When He arises to make the earth tremble.
20In that day men will cast away to the moles and the bats
Their idols of silver and their idols of gold,
Which they made for themselves to worship,
21In order to go into the caverns of the rocks and the clefts of the cliffs
Before the terror of the LORD and the splendor of His majesty,
When He arises to make the earth tremble.
22Stop regarding man, whose breath of life is in his nostrils;
For why should he be esteemed?

66: 15For behold, the LORD will come in fire
And His chariots like the whirlwind,
To render His anger with fury,
And His rebuke with flames of fire.
16For the LORD will execute judgment by fire
And by His sword on all flesh,
And those slain by the LORD will be many.

Relying on parables to establish theology is the weakest possible argument. As to you comment that we have come another full round in this, I don't know what you're trying to say.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to spell out for me what it is you think will happen in the judgment. Do you think that angels will cast humans into fire so that they will suffer? That seems to be what you are saying. If so, I have a few questions.

1)Do the people cast in fire by angels suffer for long periods of time, or do the die right away?
2)If they do not die right away, why not? Since they don't have resurrection bodies, they should.

Rather than bringing up new points, would you please address the points I've brought up first?

You accused me of disregarding Jesus' teaching because it didn't fit in with my view of God, and when I asked for evidence, you cited my use of the word "arbitrary." However, I demonstrated that I simply borrowed the word from Ellen White, who used it in pointing out that neither the suffer of the wicked nor the reward of the righteous is arbitrary. So it seems your accusation is totally without merit. You have not addressed either the quotes I brought up from Ellen White, nor Isaiah 33.

You cited some Scripture with no commentary, so I don't know what point you are trying to make, so I cannot comment.