These people are condemned even though there was truth - judgment truth - that they had never seen before? It is truth that none of the wicked had ever seen before? Including Satan, the former covering cherub?

What I said wasn't that far reaching a statement. I was speaking of human beings.

First, is it a significant distinction between God "directly killing" as opposed to commanding someone else to do it? For example, when He told the Levites to kill the calf-worshipers, was that better than when He opened the ground and swallowed up rebels?

Anyway, if God says He is righteous, then He does something "questionable," who will question His righteousness? By whose standards shall God's actions be deemed righteous?


Isn't that what Tom has been saying is the crux of the problem?

So, the angels will see nothing new. OK, I'll chew on that.

But the condemned people will receive truth that they were not given in Christ's life? This will be completely new truth for them. Right?

Does this mean that hell will be different for the angels as opposed to humans? It seems to me that Jesus spoke of humans experiencing the same hell as for the angels.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Since my name was mentioned, I'll join in.



Yes, it's a significant distinction. God's doing some action is His doing an act, which doesn't involve the hardness of someone else's heart, since He is the one understanding the action. God's direction regarding an action involves the condition of the hearts of the ones being directed, which is seen in such directions in regards to polygamy, divorce, and having a king, to name a few.

To obtain an unfettered view of God's idea will, it's necessary to consider Jesus Christ, whose "whole purpose" was the revelation of God.



Jesus Christ is the measuring stick of righteousness.



Please flesh this out a bit.

This conclusion is completely unfair and unreasonable, as should be easily seen by anyone. I said I made no statement in regards to angels. Therefore you can conclude nothing whatsoever from my statement in regards to angels.



The wicked will see things revealed in the judgment of which they were not aware during their life time. The last chapter in "The Great Controversy" seems to me to be very clear about that. Do you not read it that way?

No, it doesn't mean anything, other than I made no statement regarding angels.

So, here's a rundown of your recent statements, Tom, and perhaps you can correct my understanding here.

1. T:in the judgment there's a revelation of truth the wicked haven't seen before.
2. A:This is a revelation of truth that Jesus did not already reveal in His earthly life?
3. T:No, it's a revelation the wicked hadn't seen before.
4. A:It is truth that none of the wicked had ever seen before? Including Satan, the former covering cherub?
5. T:What I said wasn't that far reaching a statement. I was speaking of human beings.
6. A:So, the angels will see nothing new. OK, I'll chew on that.
7. T:This conclusion is completely unfair and unreasonable, as should be easily seen by anyone. I said I made no statement in regards to angels. Therefore you can conclude nothing whatsoever from my statement in regards to angels.

Tom, if I am understanding correctly, the "anyone" you referred to should understand the following to be true, relative to the above conversation:

A. In step 1 above, Tom says that there will be new truth revealed in the judgment which has never yet been seen.
B. In step 2, Arnold understands this to be truth not revealed by Jesus.
C. In step 3, Tom corrects Arnold to say Jesus revealed this truth, but the wicked had not known or seen it.
D. In step 4, Arnold understand "the wicked" to include the fallen angels.
E. In step 5, Tom corrects Arnold to say that this does not include the fallen angels (in other words, the angels have seen/known this truth, but only the human-lost have not).
F. In step 6, Arnold confirms this understanding that the angels will not see truths they never before knew.
G. Last of all, Tom tells Arnold that anyone should be able to see his conclusion is false, and that he was not speaking of fallen angels.

I guess I'm not an "anyone." I see Tom as saying two opposite things at the same time. Were you not speaking of angels in #5? If not, why bother to correct Arnold there? Perhaps you have a logical explanation for this marvelous dichotomy?

Let's go back to your original statement for a moment, to illustrate this more clearly:

T:in the judgment there's a revelation of truth the wicked haven't seen before.

The following conclusions are possible from this statement:
1. "The wicked" includes all who are lost, and therefore all the wicked will see new truth.
2. "The wicked" includes only those of mankind, since the angels will not see new truth.
3. "The judgment" obviously applies to mankind, and not to angels, since angels will not see new truth.

The following sub-concepts are possible from these conclusions:

1. The "revelation" of truth is an active part of the judgment; in which case it must necessarily be applied to all who are judged.
2. The "revelation" of truth is a side-issue, not related to the judgment, as it will be only for a portion of those damned.

Which one is it?

I still say that hell will be essentially the same for humans as for angels. Duration will be the most essential difference, as the angels will be recompensed for 6000 years of sin, as opposed to men who have lived less than 1000 at most.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You are wrong there. There are only two options: 1) The angels learn something new, 2) the angels learn nothing new. Since you denied that the angels learn something new, it must necessarily be true that the angels learn nothing new.

But now, you seem to be denying that the angels learn nothing new. Did I misunderstand your initial answer? Are you saying that the angels learn some truth in the Judgment that they never knew before? And we should not lose sight of the fact that Satan was the covering cherub.

Again, there are only two options: the angels either do or do not learn something new. There is no middle ground.

BTW, I find it somewhat amusing that you are saying that you did not intend your statement to be as far-reaching as I took it, while I believe (and I think GC has expressed this as well), that you do exactly that with certain statements in the SOP, which leads to our disagreements regarding atonement, judgment, Christ's revelation, etc. I find it ironic.