The Suffering of the Lost

this is from uriah smiths daniel and revelation which is quite interesting in light of some discussions involving the suffering of the lost and fire.

my question would be, when or how did we drift towards, at least, a partial view of the "eternal torment" idea in light of what our pioneers believed and taught?

I think there are some really good points brought out here, especially that the more experience one has, and the greater the intellect, the greater the suffering. I didn't care for the phrasing that the suffering is "adjusted," which makes it sound imposed or arbitrary. The greater ones experience and/or intellect, the greater the suffering, precisely for the reasons brought out: there's great capacity for understanding, and more to remember. There's no need to "adjust" anything.

But then, U. Smith may have simply been using this language because he was responding to a specific argument.

Regarding when different views began emerging, there was a fellow here who used to post from time to time, who went by "Keven H." I think, who had done quite a bit of research in this area. He's the only one I can think of that might know, but he hasn't been here for quite awhile. Oh, I know one other person, who hasn't been here for even longer. I'll see if I can find something out.

have you found out anything more about how we drifted into more of a variation of the eternal burning doctrine?

which, for me, raises the question of whether the lost will be raised with "immortality" or some form of that, which would be a complete contradiction.

we are either raised with immortality or not, not a temporary one.

You hold to a partial view of "eternal torment"? How did you manage to get there? Our evangelistic efforts, as far as I know, have always taught soul sleep and eternal death. U. Smith was pretty clear in the quote that suffering varied according to the sin, and the duration was finite.

oh, so the church stills holds to the suffering of conviction as presented in the article, instead of some kind of conditional immortality which would be required to burn by fire?

The church still firmly believes that sinners suffer in varying degrees, both in intensity and duration, depending on the individual's specific circumstances, as Smith described.


Torment, yes, but not eternal.

There was a fellow who used to post here from time to time whose name was Keven H. He had studied into this subject quite a bit (the subject of the destruction of the wicked). My recollection is of him saying something like that as far back as he looked, there had always been those who believed the fire that destroyed the wicked was literal, and those who didn't.

Regarding "Torment, yes, but not eternal," I think this is what teresa had in mind by saying "a variation of eternal torment." The variation would be the time element.

The question is if our belief is essentially the same as those who believe in eternal torment, except for the time duration element. Or our their fundamental differences in regards to what causes the torment?

That's an interesting way to put it. Kind of like saying we believe a "variation of once saved always saved" with the variation on the "always saved" element. I guess....


tq, in the OP, quoted Smith, then asked how "we" drifted towards "a partial view of the 'eternal torment' idea in light of what our pioneers believed and taught."

Here's what I can find in the quote that summarizes what Smith was arguing against, and what he was arguing for:
There are two items: degree of pain, duration of pain. Regarding duration, he said, "some may perish in a short space of time, and the weary sufferings of others be long drawn out." But he was agreeing with the "common" view that there are degrees of pain. On those two points, the church is still in agreement with Smith. So I don't know what the "drift" is that "we" are doing.

In any case, if we will hold to Smith's quote, then we indeed do believe in eternal torment for the lost, except for the eternal part. (We also believe in eternal torment for the saved, except for the torment part.)

As for the causes of the torment, what the "common" view is in that regard is not described in the quote, so I don't know.

hmmm, perhaps you were in a hurry as you read. no wonder the confusion.

smith is referring to mental agony of the lost not burning.

the mental agony,

that keen anguish which will rack their souls as they get a view of their incomparable loss,
each according to his capacity of appreciation.
The youth who had but little more than reached the years of accountability,
being less able to comprehend his situation and his loss,
will of course feel it less;

to him of older years,
more capacity,
and consequently a deeper experience in sin,
the burden of his fate will be proportionately greater;
while the man of giant intellect and almost boundless comprehension,
- who hence possessed greater influence for evil, and so was the more guilty for devoting his powers to the service of that evil, -
being able to understand his situation fully,
comprehend his fate, and realize his loss,
will feel it most keenly of all.
Into his soul the iron will indeed enter most intolerably deep.
And thus, by an established law of mind,
the sufferings of each may be most accurately adjusted to the magnitude of his guilt.

Where in the quote does he describe the "common view"/eternal torment alternative to this?

Regardless, Smith made no argument against burning. In fact, had you started your quote at the beginning of the sentence, you would have seen something very interesting.
First, there is bodily suffering. Second, whatever that bodily suffering will be is "an unnoticed trifle compared with the mental agony" that the lost will suffer. IOW, don't worry about the burning; there will be much worse things than that.

Like Jesus as He suffered the penalty of sin, the physical suffering the lost will endure will be an insignificant part of their torment.

Personal attack, not related to the topic.

You are quick to report others, but you indulge in it yourself. I will report you.

Teresaq,
We can do without the jabs..



Lets try and keep the gloves up.

God Bless,
-Will

I don't see this as being one or the other

The lost will experience unutterable emotional woe as the truth of their decisions becomes starkly plain
AND
there will be a fire that will cleanse the earth of all sin and sinners and remove all trace sin.

Rev. 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


" beyond this life stands the tribunal of the judgment, with its award of eternal penalties. "They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God," but with Satan and evil angels shall have their part in that "lake of fire" which "is the second death." Galatians 5:21; Revelation 20:14. {PP 461.1}

"God will cleanse the earth from its moral corruption, not by a sea of water as in Noah's day, but by a sea of fire that cannot be quenched by any human devising. {COL 179.1}

Mal. 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of...the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up....12 wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


"When the flood of waters was at its height upon the earth, it had the appearance of a boundless lake of water. When God finally purifies the earth, it will appear like a boundless lake of fire. As God preserved the ark amid the commotions of the Flood, because it contained eight righteous persons, He will preserve the New Jerusalem, containing the faithful of all ages, from righteous Abel down to the last saint which lived. Although the whole earth, with the exception of that portion where the city rests, will be wrapped in a sea of liquid fire, yet the city is preserved as was the ark, by a miracle of Almighty power. It stands unharmed amid the devouring elements (3SG 87). {7BC 986.5}

Yes, Smith put it like we used to and do still believe it to be, asygo and Teresa and Tom. I like your points, asygo and Teresa; clearly, Tom, you may well differ with us. Punishment is part of judgement and God shall render according to our works.

If one wants to decipher what we no longer 'like' of Smith, compare the revision of at least 1944 with the last original of 1902. The 1911 and 1919, British, editions aren't as decisive as the 1944 revision.

I don't think you understood the point. I'll try to be more clear.

Here is a description of the eternal torment idea:



Is the only difference between the truth and the description presented here the time element? Or are the elements of cruelty in the eternal torment idea which are not simply due to the duration that the wicked will be tortured?



This is what is being questioned. Your view, as I understand it, is just as cruel as the eternal torment view, except for the time element. So the depictions of GC 534, 535 would apply as much to the idea you're presenting, if I'm understanding it correctly, as to the eternal torment idea, except for the tortures being of limited duration.



For example, here. Are you suggesting that the bodies of the wicked will be burning? And while they are burning, God will be punishing them with something so much worse that the burning will be a trifle? If so, it's difficult to imagine a picture of God's character more cruel than this. I sincerely hope I've misunderstood you.

I'm confused regarding this post. First of all, I believe God will punish the wicked, and will render to each one according to their works. You seem to be confused in regards to my position on these points, based on your comment ("Punishment is part" etc., following your comment that I differ).

Secondly, just what is it you think teresa, I, and Arnold believe? A specific point of interest to me is if you (or anyone) thinks the wicked will be literal set on fire, and be suffering for many hours or many days in this condition.

sometimes im busy with other things (in a hurry) or distracted and dont always catch every point of a post hence my comment. so im clueless as to why it was perceived as any kind of personal attack or jab.

Teresaq,
Its perceived as a jab cause you make the person sound like they are dense, thick headed, not smart.
You yourself just said:


Back to the topic at hand. I don't want to read another comment about he said she said.

Please return to the topic if you choose to participate. If not thats fine too.

God Bless,
Will

smith is teaching against the "degrees of suffering in burning" in favor of "degrees in mental suffering".

in combating the eternal torment doctrine the pioneers stressed that eternal death was the penalty of sin, not prolonged burning.

is that what you understand from their writings or are you referring to something else?

Yes, she clearly, elsewhere, writes of the proportionate punishment according to their works of the wicked, some burning longer or suffering more than others, the devil the last to die: indeed, mental anguish shall outweigh physical suffering, and for a limited time, per God's just discretion in judgement. Real fire, burned to ashes, and the new earth recreated out of those ashes, as Malachi also states somewhere of the saints walking on the ashes of the wicked.

my apologies for prolonging this...i realize that on discussion boards making amends or righting wrongs, as in apologizing in this case, is a relatively unknown concept but i cannot do so until i understand how i have offended.

i do not consider myself as when im in a hurry and sometimes misread or misunderstand the intent of a post

but if the impression given was that i was saying someone else was then i do sincerely apologize.

from what i understand of the counsel given public blunders should be acknowledged publicly and so i do.

I have asked to return to the topic. I will not indulge, nor entertain you.
God Bless,
Will

Is it your understanding is that the wicked will be literally set on fire? For days or hours? And they're set on fire proportionately to their sin?

What does the "such teaching" in the passage refer to?

As for "elements of cruelty" in either view, that's a very subjective judgment. Some people think I'm cruel for not letting my kids run my house. But regardless of what you and I think may be cruel, what God says will happen is what's going to happen. He is not limited by our ideas of right and wrong.

Doesn't your view include torment for the lost? Sure, limited duration, but torment nonetheless.

But, you might say, in your view the torment comes from the sinner's mental anguish upon the realization of his true condition. I say, so what? Is the mental anguish of your view more or less painful than the physical pain of being burned? Furthermore, is the mental anguish of your view more or less painful than just being allowed to remain permanently dead, as opposed to being resurrected and having to see God, the saved, the New Jerusalem, then finally suffering through mental anguish of such magnitude that it proves fatal even to Satan, who was able to survive all these years separated from God?

It seems that while you recoil at the idea of the lost literally burning, you prefer the idea of their brains exploding from the inside out, through a process that makes clear to them the poor choices they have made. Kind of like recounting someone's failures to them until you drive them insane. Cruel? Some would say so.

What did Jesus experience? While we know that He suffered great physical trauma, was His suffering primarily physical?

To this:



At least this, in context, needs to be included, IMO.



I don't think considering setting someone on fire and keeping him burning for hours or days on end is cruel is particularly subjective. It's hard to imagine anyone not considering this to be cruel or Satanic. It sounds exactly like something Satan would do, or inspire one to do. Indeed, in the Middle Ages people tried to do this very thing, to figure out how to prolong a person's life, so they could be burned at the stake for a longer period of time, to make the suffering last longer. Of course, they weren't literally set on fire, which would kill a person very quickly, but the idea is similar.



I don't see God as arbitrarily causing torment to the lost at all, even for a limited duration. The torment they suffer is of their own doing.



So what? You don't perceive a difference between arbitrarily (i.e. by imposition) causing pain to someone else and their suffering pain because of an action they take themselves?



I can think of nothing that would be less painful than being set on fire.



The issue is if God is acting cruelly, and arbitrarily torturing individuals He's selected for such treatment. Regarding my view, it sounds as if you're suggesting that having any judgment at all is cruel on God's part?



Of course. Don't you? This begs the same question Ellen White asked:



Even to be discussing the possibility that a person who professes to love God and believe that He was perfectly revealed by Jesus Christ would set people on fire for hours or days is just dumbfounding to me. I cannot conceive of how a person could think this.



Arnold, you seem intent on thinking that God must act cruelly. Your defense to my suggestion that your view is cruel is that mine is to, and you're suggesting this in a preposterous way: "you prefer the idea of their brains exploding from the inside out". This is certainly not anything I've suggested, which you're, of course, aware of.

I'm suggesting that God does not act cruelly at all. Not even 1%.

In the GC passage pages 541-543 EGW discusses the principles of the judgment. She brings out that the principles of love and mercy are used by God in the judgment. She points out that the judgment of the wicked takes place for their own good. I cannot see how your view cold possibly be construed as God's doing something for their own good. How could setting them on fire for hours or days of the end be for their own good? What possible purpose could there be for burning someone?

I have inferred from your response that you believe God will literally set people on fire for hours or days on end. Before discussing this further, I would like you to confirm that I've understood your response to this point correctly.

Consider taking someone who has irrevocably chosen to be separated from God, such as Lucifer, and making him live with the consequences of that decision for thousands of years before putting him out of his misery. Wouldn't you say that living in opposition to God for millennia causes quite a bit of suffering? Which causes more suffering: physically burn for a few days or live in conscious and constant rebellion against God for 6 thousand years? Which is more "cruel"?

Hold on here. You do agree with me that when the saved are in Heaven during the Millennium, the lost are dead on Earth, yes? Dead, no pain, not knowing anything, right?

Yet, you have them, at some future time, coming back to life and suffering untold mental anguish. Who is able to bring the dead back to life, enabling them to suffer such mental anguish? Only God. I trust you do not disagree.

Whether the suffering is imposed or innate, the fact is that God gives the lost the ability to experience it.

God could just as easily judge them while they are dead. In fact, that's near the top of the to-do list during the Millennium. Once the universe has seen the justice of God's judgment, what's the point of bringing them back? Just so they could suffer the anguish of knowing what they have lost, then die?

I'm not suggesting God acts cruelly. I just try to figure out what He's going to do, and trust that He is good. Unlike Lucifer and Eve, I do not want to give myself the job of judging whether or not God is right. That job has a terrible retirement package.

I can't say for sure that He will or He won't, but I'm leaning toward He will. When it is actually happening, I'll know for sure. But either way, I believe the physical suffering will be insignificant.

When the lost experience the final and permanent withdrawal of God's countenance, whatever may be happening to their bodies will be hardly felt.

That's why I asked you about Christ's experience. It gives us an idea about what the lost will experience. It also reveals to us God's character, what He is willing to do to address sin.

I do think the wicked's experience will be similar to Christ's. However, I don't believe it's possible to be physically set on fire and be able to think about anything at all, other than the excruciating pain you're feeling.

In order for a person to be set on fire, and continue to burn for hours or days, God would have to be supernaturally intervening, in order to permit the person to suffer excruciating pain without dying, correct? What would be the purpose of God's doing this to someone? This fits with your concept of God?

Setting someone on fire is more cruel. God is not cruel at all. He does nothing cruel. Cruelty is Satanic.



GC 541-543 points out the judgment is for the good of the wicked. This implies they must be a part of it (i.e. conscious).



No, not just for this (or for this at all). The question as to why God resurrects the wicked is a good question, worthy of a topic of its own. If you'd like to start one, I'll participate. I don't think a brief answer here does the question justice.



Suggesting He will set people on fire for hours or days is certainly doing so.



God invites us to reason together. He has put Himself on judgment. He invites us to examine Him, and lays out His case for us to examine. This is from Maxwell. I don't think one could rightly claim to be favorably inclined towards Maxwell's ideas and reject this one. I understand one would not need to agree with everything Maxwell said (I don't either) but I don't think one could disagree on this point and still claim to view his ideas favorably, as this idea is the key idea upon which his entire theology revolves.

I'll respond to the other points later...


More cruel than living in conscious separation from God? I disagree. I'd prefer to be set on fire than to live apart from God.

Either fire is worse than I think, or separation from God is worse than you think. But I'm thinking separation from God is very, very bad.

What if you were in the place of the martyrs? If you had to choose between denying God and being set on fire, you would prefer to avoid the fire? I hope not. Be thou faithful unto death...


And this is one of AGM's points that I think is very important. What I reject is the idea that in the few years on earth you have studied the subject, you can feel qualified to make a verdict on God's actions (or inactions) when God has allotted 1000 years in heaven to do it. Furthermore, you seem confident that you have all the relevant evidence available to you now.

Based on your study, you have determined that God will not burn anyone, despite all the texts about burning, fire, stubble, fervent heat, etc. In contrast, I'll just take whatever God sees fit to give, and I'll take advantage of the 1000 years to examine all the evidence. In the meantime, I'll trust that God knows what He's doing.

Arnold, you don't look to be speaking of the same thing I am. I am speaking of committing cruel acts. I am asserting that God does not do cruel things. I am asserting that setting someone on fire for hours or days at a time is cruel.



It's really not hard at all to come to the conclusion that God won't set anyone on fire to suffering excruciating pain for many hours or days. It's absolutely incredulous to me that one who knows God, and believes he is like Jesus Christ, could seriously consider this is an option. Just the concept that cruelty is Satanic should be enough to immediately reject such an idea.

Just consider what God would have to do to set one on fire and keep them on fire so they could suffer. First of all, a person being set on fire would die in a few seconds. So God would have to act supernaturally to prevent the person from dying. Secondly, fire consumes matter. So God would have to do something supernatural to keep the fire from consuming a person, so the fire would burn the person, but not consume the person, its only purpose being, apparently, to cause the person excruciating pain.

In all the history of man, there was never a torture even a fraction as cruel as the one you are suggesting. I simply cannot understand how a person who believes in Christ could possibly entertain the notion for more than a few milleseconds that God might do something like this. Is this is what God is like?

What do you think of the following passage(s) describing a portion of those final moments of sin?

(Note that I have linked the Bible verses to Bible Gateway for convenience, but the references were in the original document as-is.)



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here's a parallel passage:



We can see that the same event is being discussed; even the same Scriptures are quotes. We note that she points out that the destruction of the wicked is NOT due to an imposed act of power on the part of God, but is the result of their own choice. 9 times in a row she makes the point that the destruction of the wicked is due to their own choice. They so ruin their characters that the mere presence of God is a consuming fire to them.

Principles of the judgment are also explained in GC 541-543. She points out that in the judgment of the wicked that the same principles of kindness, love and mercy which God has been using to operate His government are being used, that the judgment of the wicked is for their own good. She points out that the exclusion of the wicked is voluntary with themselves.

Also, apart from these quotes simply a little thought should be sufficient to reject the idea that God will set people on fire for hours or days at a time. God simply isn't like that. This should be clear to anyone who knows Christ, whose purpose was to reveal the Father.

When Christ was urged to have fire come down from heaven to destroy the Samaritans, who were not open to receiving Him because He had "set His face to go to Jerusalem" He replied that they knew not what spirit they were of.



God is disposed to save, not to destroy, even in judgment. It is not God's will that any be lost. The wicked are lost against the wishes of God. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves. They choose against heaven, because they want no part of it or of God, because their characters have been settled with principles that are contrary to the principles of God's kingdom.

But God is still God, and the principles of kindness, mercy and love rule. It would hardly be possible to say that God was using the principles of kindness (GC 541) in the judgment if He were setting people on fire and keeping them alive so they could suffer excruciating pain for many hours or many days.

Tom,

You said this:



Allow me to make several points:

1) You have altered her meaning. She is very clear what KIND of power God exerts. It is not arbitrary. But she does NOT indicate that this is "NOT due to an imposed act of power on the part of God". Where do you get this idea? Mrs. White never says God has not used His power in this situation. Far from it. She merely qualifies the sort of power that it is, and gives the reason for God's exercise of this power.

2) Yes, the wicked have made their choice against God. By choosing to rebel against His law, they have fitted themselves for destruction. The responsibility for their choice is on their own heads. But their just reward is executed by God Himself. Note that Mrs. White says "Fire comes down from God out of Heaven." She does not say "the wicked light themselves on fire."

3) Yes, God's presence is a consuming fire--always, and not just to them. His presence and glory cannot co-exist with sin. Any sin must be consumed in His presence, and if a sinner has not first cleansed himself before seeing God, he must be consumed along with his sin.



I think this shifts a little bit away from the pure truth. Reason and logic can almost be persuaded to agree with it, except for a few clarifying statements.



In other words, not all will have chosen "against heaven, because they want no part of it or of God."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom, you quoted - "The glory of Him who is love will destroy them." Then you wrote, "They so ruin their characters that the mere presence of God is a consuming fire to them." In other words, if God kept His distance, if He continued to shield them from the presence of His glorious light - they would not suffer and die. Also, the consuming fire that will destroy the rubble of earth is the same fire that will cause the wicked to suffer and die. Using your definition, their punishment will be arbitrary, that is, it is not sin or the results of sinning that will cause them to suffer and die. The unshielded presence of God will be necessary for the wicked to suffer and die; otherwise, it wouldn't happen.

Tom, you wrote, "She points out that the exclusion of the wicked is voluntary with themselves." But if they could rid heaven of its inhabitants, and have it to themselves, they would. They would march in and mow them down taking heaven by force. Their great desire is to live - not to die.

No I haven't. I've been consistent with her meaning, as evidenced by the context.



No, this isn't what she's saying. She's not saying "God destroys the wicked by His own power, but He doesn't do so arbitrarily." She's saying what I wrote, that God is not using an imposed power to destroy the wicked. I'll comment more on this in a moment.



I get the idea from reading what she wrote. Here's Webster's primary meaning of arbitrary:



You appear to have in mind a meaning of "arbitrary" as "capricious" or "marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power." This is a possible meaning of the word, but it's not the meaning she's using, which is easily seen by considering the context of what she wrote.

If her meaning is as you are suggesting, she would have written something along the lines of:

1.The destruction of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God.
2.God does destroy them by and act of power, but it's not an arbitrary act.
3.The reason why it's not arbitrary is because of (give reasons).

But that's how she argued. She argued like this.

1.The destruction of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God.
2.The destruction of the wicked is a result of their own choice.
3.They destroy themselves in this way (she mentions one thing)
4.They destroy themselves in this way (she mentions another thing)
5.Had God left Satan to reap the results of his sin, he would have perished, but it would not have been clear that this was the inevitable result of sin.

She says as clearly as possible that the destruction of the wicked, and Satan, is not due to something God is doing to them, but due to their own choice. She says it's the inevitable result of sin. She speaks of God's *leaving* Satan to reap the result of his sin.

There's nothing in the paragraphs cited that indicates the idea you are suggesting. Here it is again for your convenience:



Please verify that the context is not discussing whether or not God's use of power is arbitrary or not, but who is responsible for the destruction of the wicked, and what the cause of their destruction is.



No, she doesn't do this at all. She doesn't give any reasons for God's exercise of power. This is what she *should* have done if your idea as to what she meant by "arbitrary" were correct, but this is not what she did. Instead she argued that the destruction of the wicked is not due God's actions, but due to the wickeds' actions. Her use of the word "arbitrary" is consistent with Webster's primary definition of the word.



Again, if one considers what she wrote in DA 764, she doesn't say anything like this.



This agrees with what she wrote, especially DA 107, 108 discusses this. However, she's not referring to a literal fire here, which is made clear by the context.



This is straight from GC 541-543. Here's the portion my comment above discusses:



The part in bold is the thought I expressed.



The SC quote is dealing with a different situation. Before the judgment, as we live now, everybody wants to go to heaven, or virtually so (a few people think if there's no beer in heaven, they'd rather by in hell, etc., but for the most part people want to go to heaven). She points out that simply wanting to go to heaven isn't enough. And her point is right on.

If one doesn't actually respond to the Spirit of God, doesn't train the mind to love purity, form a character fit for heaven, then when one actually sees God in the judgment, heaven will be like she describes it; a place of terror that one longs to flee from. It's interesting to note that if God desired to inflict pain and suffering upon the wicked, it's not necessary for Him to do something as hideous as setting them on fire. Simply not allowing them to leave His presence would be sufficient.

The real issue here hasn't been dealt with, and that's one regarding God's character. What would God be like if He set people on fire, using supernatural power to keep them alive, so that the fire that engulfs them doesn't consume them, or kill them, or even damage their nerve endings, for the purpose of torturing them for many hours or many days?

This is a bit difficult to follow. I believe I'm saying what DA 764 says. She writes that death is the inevitable result of sin. Also "God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life."



Given the choice of living in heaven, or death, they choose death. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves. It would be torture for them. (GC 543)

Tom,

You are still not providing the full definition of "arbitrary." Since I recently acquired the brand new Ellen White CD (2008 version), I have been enjoying some of its features. It has the Webster's 1828 dictionary, which is very helpful in understanding the word usages of Mrs. White's day. Here is arbitrary in that dictionary:



What Mrs. White is saying by using this word should be clear:

1) God is not a despot.
2) God does not punish for no reason (i.e. lawlessly).
3) God's punishment is not merely subjective or whimsical.

Yes, the word "capricious" is synonymous with arbitrary to a certain extent. But the word arbitrary focuses more on the aspect of law. Doing something arbitrarily necessarily means that it is without subjection to law and order.

God has a law. It is this law that must be requited by the death of the sinner. As such, it is not an arbitrary exercise of power on God's part, but rather a lawful one.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Who are we to tell Mrs. White what to do? She was God's servant, and is accountable to Him for her writings.

Did Jesus ever tell anyone why He called the Samaritan woman a dog? Should He have justified His words, by telling us the reason? or should we be able to understand His methods by looking at the entire body of His ministry?

Mrs. White need not make every statement provide the full picture. It is to be expected that other statements will help to provide a fuller picture.

I accept the DA statement you provided. Do you accept the GC statement I posted? If so, how can you still hold to a belief that denies God's participation/power in the justice which is executed?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

She's using the primary definition:



She is not arguing that God is not being capricious. If she were, she would have argued along the lines I pointed out.



But she didn't do this. Instead, she did this:



It doesn't appear to me that you're considering what she actually wrote. Here's a section:



Please note:

1.The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.
2.When one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.
3."All they that hate Me love death."
4.They receive the results of their own choice.
5.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.
6.The glory (character) of Him who is love will destroy them.
7.Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished.
8.This (death) is the inevitable result of sin.

Over and over again she makes the point she should be making if she's using the primary definition of "arbitrary." Not once does she make the argument she should be making if she had the secondary argument in mind.

The most important issue to my view hasn't been dealt with, and that's one regarding God's character. What would God be like if He set people on fire, using supernatural power to keep them alive, so that the fire that engulfs them doesn't consume them, or kill them, or even damage their nerve endings, for the purpose of torturing them for many hours or many days?

The only reason I can think of that you would respond this way is that you didn't understand what I meant. I said she should have written the way I outlined *if* what you suggested regarding the meaning of the word "arbitrary" were true. But it's not true. She didn't have that meaning of the word in mind. This is clear by taking into account what she actually wrote.



This is exactly my point. DA 764 helps us to understand that God does not use an arbitrary act of power to destroy the wicked, but that they die as a result of their own choice; they separate themselves from God, who is the source of life, etc.



I don't see that you're accepting the DA statement at all. It You're suggesting a meaning of the word "arbitrary" which looks to me to be indicating that you're not accepting it.

Regarding the GC statement, I would add Revelation to the mix as well. What I believe in regards to what Ellen White and John wrote is that they described what they saw in vision. But I think they would both be taken aback in horror at the idea that God would set people on fire, and keep them burning for days or hours at at time, or for all eternity (as some people think).

In DA 764, Ellen White is writing plainly, not simply describing a vision she saw. She's explaining the events in terms of principles. What I believe is that we should understand these principles, and then apply them to other passages, such as in Revelation or the GC passage.

Tom,

You're exactly right. She's using the primary definition of arbitrary. But you have missed what that is. I will use your "primary definition" which you provided as "Exhibit A" in this case:



That's in the definition #1, i.e. "primary definition" (although an honest scholar would never take such liberty as to say an author must necessarily always use but the "primary definition" to a given word).

I repeat, by her use of the adjective "arbitrary," Ellen White is qualifying the kind of power God uses. If God did NOT use His power in this, she might simply have left the word unqualified, and omitted the word "arbitrary" entirely. That she does not do so should mean something.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

On this point, I am not misunderstanding your meaning, but you forget what my understanding is. I believe that she is indeed meaning that which you refuse to accept. Therefore, you are trying to say that Mrs. White should have written another way. However, I do not believe it necessary for her to have done so, as the meaning of her words is plain enough in this and in other statements as well.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, I haven't. The meaning is by individual discretion. By saying that the wicked are not destroyed by an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, using the primary definition, she is saying that God does not, by an act of individual discretion, by means of an act of power, destroy the wicked.



Please explain your comment here. Are you thinking I said that Ellen White must necessarily always use the primary definition of the word? I certainly didn't say that! I claimed she did, in this case, do so, and presented an argument as to why. So why your comment here?



That's correct, and according to the primary definition of the word, the qualification is that it not an act of individual discretion (or "depending upon will or discretion").



She might have, or she might have done what she did, which was to point out that the destruction of the wicked is not due to an imposed act of power (imposed is a synonym to "individual discretion" here; if you act on the basis of individual discretion, that's an imposed act).



And it does! What it means is clear by the context. It means that the death of the wicked is not due to something God imposes upon the wicked, but is the result of their own choice, as she repeats again and again. She says not a word about God's not being despotic, or any such thing. That's not the context of her statement. The context is that the destruction of the wicked is the result of their own choice, the inevitable result of sin.

Ok, I'll try wording it another way. You have an idea, which is that EGW used the word "arbitrary" not in accordance with its primary definition, but with a secondary definition. If you were correct on this point, then what Ellen White wrote would bear this out. She would have argued along the following lines:



But she didn't. She argued along these lines:



So the evidence doesn't bear out your idea of what she meant by the word "arbitrary."



The evidence doesn't bear this out, as I've shown.



No, you're misunderstanding things here. I'm saying IF what you are asserting, that "arbitrary" was used according the secondary definition as opposed to the primary one, THEN she should have written along the lines I outlined. BUT she did not write the way I outlined. THEREFORE what you asserted is false.

This is a standard argument.

Here is the structure of the argument:

1.You assert X.
2.I argue that if X were the case, then Y would follow.
3.I demonstrate that Y is not the case.
4.I conclude that therefore X is false.

For you to counter this argument, you should do one of the following:

1.Argue that it's not true that if X were the case that Y would follow.

or

2.Argue that Y is the case.

In the case of our discussion, this means you should either argue that Ellen White didn't write what I claimed she did, or argue that the fact that she wrote as I say she does not imply what I say it does.

I am not asserting that Ellen White should have written differently than she did. If this is what you're understanding, you're not understanding what was written correctly.



What she wrote in DA 764 is indeed clear, and bears out that she had in mind the primary meaning of the word "arbitrary," as I demonstrated.

I wish to reiterate that the most important issue to my view hasn't been dealt with, and that's one regarding God's character. What would God be like if He set people on fire, using supernatural power to keep them alive, so that the fire that engulfs them doesn't consume them, or kill them, or even damage their nerve endings, for the purpose of torturing them for many hours or many days?

Tom,

I have not claimed Mrs. White used other than the primary definition. You are the one who is actually not accepting the primary definition. You are attempting to accept a portion of it only, but not the whole of it. The definition, the primary definition, says arbitrary means not governed by any fixed rules; and not fixed by law.

Mrs. White, by using this word, plainly says that God's use of power is the opposite of this--i.e. that He abides by law in the use of His power. Again, she does NOT say that God uses no power. You, however, attempt to construe this as saying He does not use power. This rendition is unwarranted based on the grammar and terminology of the sentence. She does not say that God uses no power. Furthermore, other references of Mrs. White's writings clarify exactly what God will do. He will cause the lost to burn, some of them for days, and Satan the longest. Her words could hardly be more explicit on this point.

This is what I've been doing. I'm arguing that your "Y" is not true. But perhaps I have not been clear enough.

Your "Y" hangs upon a definition of "arbitrary" which is not in the dictionary. This is why we have spent so much time on this one word.

If I tell you that I am not eating chocolate ice cream, that I do not like chocolate ice cream (and never have), can you safely presume that I am not eating ice cream? No, of course not. I may be eating coconut ice cream (my favorite since I was introduced to it here in Asia).

If God is not using "arbitrary power" does this mean He is not using power at all? Again, the answer is no. If such were the case, Mrs. White would have needed to omit the word "arbitrary" entirely.

The adjective qualifies the noun. The noun is "power." The adjective is "arbitrary." What kind of "power?" It is not an "arbitrary power."

While I said these things earlier, it sometimes helps the concepts to be communicated when presented from a different angle. I do not expect that you will agree, but I hope I have helped you to understand my position.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The problem with your view, Tom, is that in order to hold it you must necessarily reject certain portions of inspiration.

Mrs. White tells us in no uncertain words that what you described above will happen (although she does not use the pejorative word "torture"). Do you think we mere mortals have any wisdom above God? Can we presume to know Him better than He knows Himself? He has spoken of these events through His prophets...do we now reject His words because reason tells us that they cannot be correct?

I was just reading earlier today in Mrs. White's writings about how the French placed the Goddess of Reason (a dancer from the theater) in place of God, and claimed that reason was their god. While they did this in a literal sort of way, we may also be guilty of a similar wrong by thinking we know better than God.

Mrs. White speaks plainly regarding the lost.



Mrs. White calls this act of God a righteous one. The "cleansing flames" have met the "demands of justice" as required by God's righteous law. I want to be among those who say "Amen," don't you?

In a sense, to deny the reality of this event is to deny a portion of God's law. I cannot, in good conscience, do so.

That statement is clear, too. God's character is revealed through this. Something to think about, isn't it?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, you haven't understood the definition. The definition is saying that "arbitrary" means "by individual discretion as opposed to by fixed law or rule." This means that instead of rendering a decision based on a rule or law, a person, like a judge, uses his individual discretion. It's not dealing with whether or not the judge is abiding by the law or not. Of course the judge, using his individual discretion, is abiding by the law. But there is discretion involved in his decision. It's not a fixed decision, with no space for individual discretion. That's the point of the definition.

In the Ellen White quote, she's saying that the destruction of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary, or imposed, act of power on the part of God, but, instead, is a result of the decision of the wicked themselves. This is her point, that the wicked die as a result of their own choice.

This is especially made clear in the case of Satan, where she says had God *left* Satan to reap the result of sin, he would have perished. If Satan were die to act of power from God's hands, then it wouldn't make sense to say that if God *left* Satan to reap the result of his sin he would perish, as in this case it would be God Himself who was causing His death. But her whole point is that it's not God, but sin, as she continues that in this case (if God left Satan to perish by reaping the results of his sin) it would not have been evident that death is the inevitable result of sin. Of course, if death *isn't* the inevitable result of sin, but due to and act on God's part, waiting wouldn't do any good. No matter when God killed the wicked, it would be evident that there death was not due to the inevitable result of sin.



This is incorrect. She is either saying that the wicked do not die as the result of an act of imposed power on the part of God, or that God is not acting capriciously in destroying the wicked by an act of power. In the former case, God wouldn't be using power at all. Both constructions are valid, based on the grammar and terminology involved. To settle the issue, the *context* must be the determining factor.



Again, this is not dealing with the most important issue, regarding God's character. What would God be like if He set people on fire, using supernatural power to keep them alive, so that the fire that engulfs them doesn't consume them, or kill them, or even damage their nerve endings, for the purpose of torturing them for many hours or many days?

I really don't understand how you can even entertain this idea. It should be obvious, on the face of it, that this interpretation couldn't possibly be right, simply on the basis that cruelty is Satanic.



You haven't presented any arguments, but assertions. I've presented an argument based on the text. I enumerated what she said, and explained why her points fit with the primary definition, but not with the second.



This isn't the argument, GC. The argument is that there are two possible definitions for arbitrary, the primary or the secondary. I'm arguing that Ellen White's point is that the wicked due not due to an arbitrary, or imposed, or discretionary, act of power on the part of God, not that God destroys the wicked by an act of power but is justified in so doing.

As I've pointed out, the context bears out what I'm saying. If she were arguing that God was justified in His use of power, she would have made some point relating to this fact. But she didn't. All her points relate to the fact that the wicked die as a result of their own choice.

The subject under discussion is what causes the death of the wicked. Is it an arbitrary act of power on the part of God? Or is it the result of the choices of the wicked themselves?

The subject under discussion is *not* whether that act of power which God uses is arbitrary or not.

Well, let's get right to the point here:

1) No, it is not an "arbitrary" act of power on the part of God.
2) Yes, the responsibility for the death of the wicked falls upon themselves. It was their own choice(s) that led them to this fate.

However, God kills them. They do not kill themselves. In a sense, God is ALSO responsible for their deaths, in that He executes the judgments.

To use a Biblical example...

The last two verses there, which I bolded, represent the scene well in terms of choices and responsibility.

The Amalekite, by his own choice, had earned the death penalty. David commanded that it be executed. Who was responsible for the man's death?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Not if inspiration agrees with God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ, which I believe it does. I think you're holding to a view which doesn't agree with God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ.



She uses this word in GC 536.



So setting someone on fire is, in her words, "torture." Your view isn't "unceasing torture," since you think it will end, but the setting on fire part is the same as what the eternal torment people believe, and she terms this "torture."



God has revealed Himself to us in and through Jesus Christ. The most important factor not reason, but revelation. It appears to me that you're suggesting a view which has God acting in a way which is completely at odds with what Jesus Christ revealed.



I may be suggesting that I know better than you, but I'm not suggesting I know better than God. I believe I can disagree with you without disagreeing with God.



I agree, and have been quoting her. I don't believe she taught that the wicked will be set on fire for hours or days. Teresa's posts seem to be bringing out that her contemporaries didn't take her words this way either. I know Waggoner, for one, wrote things very similar to what I've written regarding this subject.

There was a fellow who used to post here, Kevin H., who had researched this subject in detail from an historical perspective, who said that the idea that the fire was not literal goes back to the very beginnings of Adventism.



I hope, by God's grace, to be among the ones praising God for all eternity, and to "Amen" His finally destruction of sin, the greatest feat there will ever be (that and saving a fallen race). However, I won't be saying "Amen" to the setting on fire of people for hours or days at a time, as that won't be happening.



I'm not denying reality, but your view. Your ideas do not necessarily correspond to reality.



This sounds like a precursor to GC 541-543. God uses the principles of kindness, mercy and love in the judgment. She also says that cruelty is Satanic. These are among the reasons that I reject your view. It's not possible that God will set people on fire for many hours or many days in order to make them suffer. First of all, it's completely foreign to His character to act in this manner. Secondly, what purpose could there possibly be in burning people alive? Doesn't even the expression "burning alive" sound savage?

How is it you think that it is possible for God to do this? I understand you think this is what inspiration says, but this isn't what I'm asking. There could be some passage in inspiration which looks to be saying, reading in a cursory way, that God lied about some given thing. You would reject such a reading immediately, I would suspect, because you don't believe that God's character is such that He would lie (in addition to the statement from James). So what I'm asking is why you think it is possible, before considering that statement in Revelation, that God would set people on fire for many hours or many days.

According to the SOP, all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here with us in the flesh. What is Jesus' life or teachings would lead you to believe that He would set someone on fire, and keep the person alive for the purpose of causing that person excruciating pain?

This is contradicting what DA 764 says. She says *rather* than being an "arbitrary" act of power on the part of God, it is the choice of the wicked that causes their death. Let's consider DA 764:



Please note:

1.The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.
2.When one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.
3."All they that hate Me love death."
4.They receive the results of their own choice.
5.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.
6.The glory (character) of Him who is love will destroy them.
7.Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished.
8.This (death) is the inevitable result of sin.

Over and over again she makes the point she should be making if she's using the primary definition of "arbitrary." Not once does she make the argument she would have made if she had the in mind what you are suggesting for her.

Notice specifically she quotes Christ as saying that those who hate Him love death. "Love" hear means "choose" (as in when Christ said that those who didn't hate their father and mother weren't worthy of Him; this is speaking of preference, not the emotion. Christ is saying here that those who reject Him are choosing death).

The passage explains how it is that the wicked cause their own destruction. For example:

"When one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life."

The most important issue to my view hasn't been dealt with, and that's one regarding God's character. What would God be like if He set people on fire, using supernatural power to keep them alive, so that the fire that engulfs them doesn't consume them, or kill them, or even damage their nerve endings, for the purpose of torturing them for many hours or many days?

I haven't read the recent deluge of posts, but a quick comment for now....


There is no contradiction. Look at the definition again, one contemporary with EGW:

Whether we choose the first or second meaning, your interpretation still does not follow from the text.


You say we should take meaning 1. OK, let's do that.

Does the death of the wicked depend on God's will or discretion? IOW, does God choose who will be saved and who will be lost? No, He does not. He wants all to be saved, but each one must choose for himself. Those who are lost end up there because of their own choices, not God's whim.

Is this result not governed by any fixed rules? It most certainly is. There is no guesswork involved. By their fruits you will know them, not just have a very good idea. Our problem now is that we do not have full disclosure of each one's fruits. But everything will be laid out in the open during the judgment. Then everyone will see the "cause and effect" of God's judgment.

And what is the cause the effects the death of the wicked? His own wicked choices. You can't blame it on God.

EGW said, "This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God." She did NOT say, as you are suggesting, "This is not an act of power on the part of God." She was pointing out that the wicked are lost, not because of an arbitrary choice of God as Calvinists would have us believe, but the simple working out of God's laws - the soul that sins shall die.

But as MM pointed out, the wicked will not light themselves on fire. They won't light the whole planet on fire either. The cleansing of the earth will not be left in the hands of those who have proven themselves unwilling to do the right thing. That job is reserved for God; He will cleanse with fire.


What would God be like if He raised people from the respite of death, only to have them endure mental anguish of such proportions that it will cause eternal death?

Satan chose to separate himself from God long ago, but he's still around. Is he keeping himself alive? Or is it "supernatural power" that keeps him alive, to suffer through his miserable existence?

Plus, the SOP says that he will suffer for many days because of his sins and the sins he caused others to commit. Doesn't sin separate us from God, the Source of life? More sins means more separation from God, yes? More separation from God means less life, yes? But Satan lives longer than the rest of the wicked, according to the SOP. How is that, if not for supernatural power?

Your indignation is misplaced. The anguish of soul that the lost will suffer is much worse than any physical pain can ever be. But when the wicked receive their reward, the universe will not think God was bad for giving it to them.

Yes it does. She says that the death of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power of God. Then she says 9 or 10 times in a row that the wicked die as a result of their own choice. I don't see how the significance of this can be missed.

She says that had God *left* Lucifer to reap the result of his sin, he would have perished. If God were to cause Lucifer's death by killing him, she could hardly have said that God was leaving him to perish.

She says that death is the inevitable result of sin, but this would not have been understood had God allowed this to happen at the beginning. However, after Christ had died (please recall that this whole chapter is dealing with the theme of what Christ accomplished by His death) it was no longer the case that Satan's death would be misinterpreted. Why? Because the mechanics of the second death were seen in Christ's death.

How did Christ die? Did God kill Him? Or was it the "inevitable result of sin"?



Christ felt the anguish the wicked will feel, and this caused His death (next sentence). The death of the wicked will be caused by sin, as Christ's was, which explains how it is that Satan's death, and the death of his followers, won't be misunderstood in the judgment.



No she's not. Here's what she wrote:



This is saying nothing about the working out of God's laws. Not one word. It's saying precisely what I've said it is, that the wicked die as a result of their own choice. I can demonstrate this by simply copying and pasting what she said point by point:

1.The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.
2.When one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.
3."All they that hate Me love death."
4.They receive the results of their own choice.
5.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.
6.The glory (character) of Him who is love will destroy them.
7.Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished.
8.This (death) is the inevitable result of sin.

All one needs to do to see what I'm saying is the case is to simply read what she wrote. One should attempt to make an argument based on what she actually wrote.

It's true that if one considers only the one sentence that it could be taken the way that's being suggested. But consider the sentences which follow. When one does this it's clear that her point is that the death of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, but due to the result of their own choice.



As the SOP points out, God acts in accordance with the principles of mercy, kindness and love, as well as in accordance with the principle of "Love they enemy." She also points out that the judgment of the wicked is for their own benefit.

Now there's no way that setting someone on fire, and supernaturally keeping them alive so they can experience excruciating pain (which she calls "torture") can be construed as "kindness" "mercy" or "love," nor being for the benefit of the wicked.



What's your argument here? That God is being cruel by supernaturally prolong Satan's life so that he can suffer?



What possible purpose could there be in God's setting someone on fire, and keeping the alive just so they can suffer excruciating pain? Ellen White terms this "torture" (GC 536). This would not be "eternal torture" but finite in duration, but torture nonetheless. Do you really want to defend the idea that God will torture those who chose not to follow Him?

Tom,



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I don't see how your question fits into this topic. Do you see that David did something akin to setting someone on fire to be burned alive for hours?

I've made the following point quite a number of times to you:



I don't recall your having responded to this, although this is clearly on topic.

Tom,

I have answered your question before, but perhaps the quote above will help to answer it more. I agree with Mrs. White on this point. She expressly said that even through the punishment of the wicked, God's character thus revealed will cause all to admire Him.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You can evade the Bible texts, by claiming they are not relevant, but no one will evade the coming day of reckoning. What will you think of God when you see the flames doing exactly what Mrs. White predicted...for days? She spoke under inspiration, and I have no reason to reject her words as you do. Therefore, I am obliged to believe that which may be beyond my current understanding.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

In order to have some fairness in this discussion, it is important to distinguish between two representations of hell: 1) the false teaching of an eternally-burning hell; and 2) the true concept of hell.

Mrs. White speaks of both of these. In this thread, however, we are addressing the true (i.e. what will hell really be like). It would be unfair, and irresponsible scholarship to apply what Mrs. White expressly teaches is false to her representation of the true picture, would you agree?

If you will agree with the above, which I believe you do, then please find me at least one statement where Mrs. White is teaching the true picture of hell and terms the burning as "torture." I have only seen this term in reference to the false teaching of eternally-burning, immortal souls in hell.

If you do not find such a statement in reference to the true, please do not represent those of us who accept Mrs. White's teaching on the matter as believing that God will "torture" the wicked. Such is most certainly an erroneous view, and I believe it is unfair to speak of God in such a light.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Sin is not what will cause the wicked to suffer and die. It is the radiant fire light of God's glorious presence that will consume and destroy them with their sins. The absence of the radiant fire light of God's glorious presence is the reason why sinners do not die of emotional anguish when they sin. After years of sinning, however, they harden their hearts beyond being able to die of emotional anguish. They become dead to sin and incapable of dying of emotional anguish.

No one here is advocating this idea. Please stop acting as if it is true.

In the beginning the smallest sin would have caused A&E to suffer intense emotional agony ending in instant death. And yet you believe the wicked will somehow be able to suffer the combined emotional agony of millions of sins for many, many days without dying immediately. How is this physically possible? They are resurrected in their previous state of decay and disease. Their physical ability to endure emotional hardship is greatly diminished, if not nonexistent. Nevertheless, you believe they are capable of enduring unimaginable agony for many, many days without dying instantly. Do you think God works to keep them alive supernaturally so that they can suffer? If so, what does this say about God's character?

I don't recall seeing your response, nor do I see it here. I'm asking what would God be like if He set people on fire to suffer excruciating pain for many hours or many days, etc. What would He be like?



I asked you how the text is relevant. How is it relevant?

GC, I write tons of stuff that you ignore, and don't complain about it. I have to bring up things 5 or 6 times to get a response, and even then sometimes I don't. Here there's one thing I didn't answer because I don't see the relevance of it, and you're trying to make a case out of it, when you're not even half as thorough in responding to my posts as I am to yours.



She never said God would set the wicked on fire, to burn for many days or many hours. You're reading this into the text. There are many besides myself who don't read the text the way you do.

The question I have is how you can even conceive of the possibility that God would act in this way, given His character. When Jesus Christ was asked if the Samaritans should be set on fire, He responded they the disciples did not know of what spirit they were. The SOP points out, in speaking of this passage, that it is the spirit of Satan to be disposed to cause harm to those who are not in harmony with one's work. And this would just be to destroy quickly, not to cause excruciating pain for many hours or days.



This is puerile. I can only respond in kind: "I have no reason to reject her words as you do."

Under inspiration both she and the Scriptures present a picture of God's character which is diametrically opposed to the picture you are portraying. She wrote that "cruelty is Satanic." Either you are rejecting her words her, or see nothing cruel in setting someone on fire for many hours or many days at a time.



What specifically is beyond your current understanding?

Tom, your preferred view does not dictate reality. I may wish to wear rose-colored glasses, but the glasses will not remove the actual blemishes of a reality that I may not wish to see. Sin is an evil thing. Very evil. The universe has been "tortured" by it for six thousand years. Jesus was "tortured" on the cross, because of your sins and mine. The angels and God have been mocked, despised, ridiculed, rejected, spurned and blasphemed. For six thousand years. What's a few days' worth of vengeance in comparison to this? Very merciful justice. A few hours or days? God is merciful. That is "what He would be like."


It presents the same principle of responsibility that we are discussing here.

Yes, Tom, you write plenty. Sometimes I don't bother to tell you that I have tried answering something before but you appeared to not wish to understand it, or perhaps even hear it. So I do not always respond. Also, sometimes I agree with your points, or do not disagree enough to bother responding. I may have less time than some, and so I choose which things to respond to. My apologies if this offends you.

This is but evidence that you haven't been reading the quotes I've posted. Even a child would understand her meaning clearly, as long as he or she had not been predisposed to reject such as "cruel," "inhumane," and "impossible" based on a God-can-do-no-harm-and-will-not-use-force-even-to-put-a-stop-to-sin belief.

Because He has revealed that He WILL do this.

Indeed. Jesus' spirit and that of God in executing justice will not be the same spirit the disciples showed. Not at all.

Context is everything. The situation is different here. If it was ok for the New Testament believers to abolish circumcision, why did God send an angel with drawn sword to slay Moses' on account of his uncircumcised son? Double standard? Fickle? Two-faced? NOT AT ALL. I feel like the accusations you throw at me (and/or at God) as a result of these things are just like those accusations that any infidel could throw out for the "inconsistencies" they see in the Bible like this. What's the difference between upholding that law, and then dismissing it? By the way, did Jesus ever reveal through His life that the rite of circumcision was no longer binding? Then can we truthfully say that everything was revealed through Jesus' life?

How much have you learned from Mrs. White? Dare I suggest that she has taught you many things that are not in the Gospels? or would this contradict what she said about Jesus having revealed everything through His life?

You are misinterpreting. You misinterpret me, put the "portrayal" which I have presented here in a bad light--when really that is coming directly from inspiration. Mrs. White is telling us more than you are accepting. Yes, cruelty is Satanic. God is not cruel. God is righteous, faithful, and just. And God is JEALOUS. Did you know that? "But jealousy is a sin???" "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Ex. 34:14) Is God a sinner? Should I refuse to accept this text of the Bible just because it goes so strongly against my preconceptions? No. I accept it. I accept that it does not mean the same to God as it means to us.

The answers to the "Why?" questions. I don't have those. I don't know "Why?" God does all of this. But I believe what I am told just the same. Do I have any reason to doubt His Word?

You have not given me any reason, and even if you should, I would likely still choose to believe what God has said. If He tells us that Satan will burn for many days, why should I doubt that?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This isn't true. GC is advocating the idea. Arnold says he's leaning toward it. Neither have suggested I've misrepresented their thoughts. They've been defending this idea as true.



As their lives are reviewed, their sins are revealed. They are made aware of the times when Jesus was calling them, but they didn't heed His voice, and so forth.



I don't think God does anything supernatural to enable the wicked to suffer. What they suffer is due to their own choice, not something God imposes upon them, nor does God act supernaturally to augment their capacity to suffer.

In GC 536, and thereabout, Ellen White speaks of the false view of hell. She considers it cruel, and speaks of "eternal tortures." Now if the only thing you see different between the view that she is representing and the view you hold is the time element, then everything she says about the view she is representing holds to your view as well, excluding the time element.

I've asked on a number of occasions what's different between that view and the view being suggested by you and others, aside from the time element, and haven't gotten any response. If you would like to put forth how your view is different, I'm happy to hear that.



GC 536 speaks of "eternal tortures." If the only difference between the view she presents there and what you believe happens is the element of time, then you believe in "non-eternal tortures." If you further assert that the true view is not "torture," then the view you are presenting cannot be the true view.



The term is "eternal tortures." If you don't believe the view she represents is incorrect, except for the time element, then the description of "tortures" applies.



Then please tell me how your view is different than the view she is representing as false, other than the time element.



I agree that it is unfair to speak of God in the light of an erroneous view, and believe the view you are presenting is erroneous, because it looks like the view Ellen White represents as false, except for the time element. I believe the time element is not the only thing false in the view she describes as "eternal tortures."

Of course it doesn't dictate reality. That would be silly to suggest. But does it represent reality? Not completely, I would agree. All of our views are going to be off to varying degrees. I think my view has the advantage of at least being in harmony with what we know of God's character. I think your view is presenting God's character to be diametrically opposed to what it actually is.



This is an example of what I'm saying in regards to misrepresenting God's character. "What's a few days' worth of vengeance in comparison to this?" This, IMO, does not in the slightest represent the teachings of Christ, who taught that one should turn the other cheek and love one's enemy. This is misrepresenting the vengeance of God as being similar to that of an evil man. I'll explain.

If there is a kingdom in which there is injustice, and a person takes power over that kingdom, and decides to punish those who were unjust in the previous administration, what would you think of the one who took power if he were to set those who were previously in power on fire? Wouldn't the words "savage" and "cruel" (or worse) come to mind? Wouldn't someone who did this thinking of it as "justice" rightly be described as ignorant and hard-hearted?

But in the case of God, it's worse than this, because He has the power, and supposedly uses it, to prevent people from dying, so they can experience more pain. I really don't understand how anyone who loves God and believes Jesus Christ represented Him can entertain this idea.

And to call this "justice" is atrocious. Setting people on fire is not divine justice. The ignorant, hard-hearted man mentioned above could think this is justice, but not the Lord, who so loved the world that He gave His Son.



But David didn't set anyone on fire, nor torture anyone in any manner whatsoever.



What's "offends" is the following:

1.I make 10 points and ask 10 questions, and you respond to maybe half.
2.You make 10 points and ask 10 questions, and I respond to all but one.
3.I don't make any point at all in regards to your omissions.
4.You characterize my omission as "evading the Bible texts."

I hope you can see the injustice in this. I'm happy to converse with you in regards to the issues we are discussing, but please omit any personal comments.



No, it's not. As I pointed out, many don't read the texts the way you do. In this very forum, at the moment, you are the only one I'm aware of that is fully committed to the view you are presenting. Arnold says he's "leaning" toward it. If I understand MM correctly, he used to hold it, but doesn't any more, instead thinking there will be fire around the wicked, but not that they will actually be set on fire for many hours or many days. I don't think Rosangela has ever held this view. Teresa doesn't hold this view. Kland doesn't hold it. I don't hold it. I think that's everyone discussing this thread.

I'm just giving this as an example, as this is a sample size which is right at hand. The point is that many people have read the same texts you are reading and do not come to the same conclusion you do. They are just as entitled to be right as you are.



Even a child would understand that setting a person on fire is cruel. It's certainly not necessary to set someone on fire for many hours or many days, and exercise supernatural power for the sole purpose of enabling the person to experience excruciating pain in order to put a stop to sin.



No, this isn't the point, GC. There is something within you that allows you to view this interpretation as a possibility. This is why I gave the example of interpreting something in Scripture as God's lying. I'm assuming you would reject this interpretation on the face of it because you don't believe that it is in harmony with God's character to lie. But for some reason you think it is in harmony with God's character to set people on fire for hours or days of at a time in order to cause them excruciating pain. What I'm asking is why you think God is such a Being that it is possible for Him to act in this way.



But the interpretation you are giving manifests the behavior which was rejected by Christ, and by the SOP. Specifically, the SOP said



Now setting someone on fire, and keeping the alive so they can suffer excruciating pain, is manifesting a disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate one's work.



No it's not. You're presenting the idea that God sets people on fire, and supernaturally keeps them on fire so they can suffer excruciating pain. You think this is "vengeance" and "justice." But this is not stated anywhere in inspiration. This is just an interpretation of a passage which you hold, an interpretation that many do not hold.



No, you should adjust your preconceptions to agree with the truth. The truth is that God is not cruel. The truth is that setting people on fire for many hours or many days, and supernaturally keeping them alive to suffer excruciating pain is unspeakably cruel.



You shouldn't accept cruelty.



What specifically? Do you mean set people on fire for many hours or many days?



No, but you have reason to doubt your interpretations if they lead to the conclusions that God is acting cruelly.



Reason to believe that God doesn't set people on fire for many hours or many days? I've given many reasons not to believe this. For one thing, it is cruel.



What I'm arguing against is the idea that God will set people on fire for many days or many hours, using supernatural power keep them alive and enable them to suffer. There's certainly nothing in inspiration which says this. The reason to doubt your interpretation of things is because it's cruel.

I will so suggest now. You are misrepresenting my thoughts. How many times must I say that God does not torture before you will cease saying that is what I am saying?

Let me put it to you another way...

If a parent spanks his child, is this "torture?" Pain, yes. Punishment, yes. Torture, no.

I was spanked as a child. I never, even then, thought of it as torture. Sometimes it was with a belt, or a wooden spoon on a bare bottom. It stung. It hurt. But I never thought of it as torture.

In Thailand, I witnessed the school disciplinarian whipping students who had not been obedient the day before. They may have missed class, not finished their homework, come to school late, or not wearing the proper uniform. Their uniforms consisted of shorts or short skirts (it's a very hot climate there), and the disciplinarian would apply a small willow-type whip to the bare portion of their legs. This was done in front of all the other students at flag raising. Did the whip sting? Certainly. Depending on the offense, it may have been applied one or several times. Did the sting of the whip hurt the most? I don't think so. I think they were most hurt by the embarrassment in front of their peers. Was it torture?

From your definition, it sounds like the only aspect of punishment that turns it into "torture" is "time." Does this mean that the first swat of the spanking would not be "torture" but the next four would be "torture" because it is continuing the punishment?

Of course, perhaps you feel parents should never spank, I don't know. Many do feel this way in modern society, and the children's behavior shows it. On the other hand, you may point out that disciplining a child is redemptive/corrective, whereas the final punishment for sin is not. This is true. But, the point to be clarified here is that "time" alone does not constitute "torture."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,



Three points here:

1) I have stated in my previous posts my position on this.
2) Ellen White never, that I am aware of, calls hell "torture". I politely request that you discontinue calling it thus until you prove to me otherwise.
3) Punishment does not equal torture, and yet punishments are not all equal. It stands to reason that some should receive greater punishment than others. To think otherwise is to make God out to be unfair.

Consider this: The saints will receive their rewards based on their works. Not all will have the same privileges in Heaven. Not all will have the same number of stars in their crowns. Yet not a one of us will feel God is unfair.

Would it be fair of God to have all of the wicked suffer the same punishment? Satan, who has caused the ruin of billions of beings, has sinned for thousands of years, and who inflicted such harsh treatment on Jesus Himself...should his punishment be equal to that of the poor man who did not know God, and who failed to overcome selfishness in some small thing?

If you feel it is unfair for some to be punished longer, your definition of fairness is incomprehensible to me.

Note: Punishment does not equal torture. Even the dictionary would agree with me. Please do not continue to misconstrue this point.




Ellen White tells us some suffer longer than others. She does not say some are tortured longer. Nor does she qualify fully what type of suffering it is. It may be emotional. It may be physical. It is almost certainly a combination of the two, because we are given the terms "consuming," "fire," "burnings," "weeping," "wailing," and "gnashing of teeth" as well (not all in the same quote).

When an angel is quoted in this statement, and the angel says of those in hell, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon," do you believe this? Or do you feel this is heresy which amounts to "torture?" When Mrs. White prefaced the angel's words with "Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained," can you merely deny this? Or will you, as I do, recognize that this is inspired revelation of future events?

More importantly, would you wish me to deny what inspiration teaches?

Certainly, we must have a balance. Jude says, "Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" (21-23).

Two points from the above:

1) We should be looking for the mercy of Jesus Christ in these things.
2) Some people will be brought to salvation through their fear of hell, just as some are brought to God by compassion. Each person will be motivated in the beginning a little differently. These things are written for our admonition. If this is not your medicine, there is still no need to deny it of others.

In the end, all will serve God from love, or not serve Him at all. But love without rules is not love. Rules without consequences are not rules. Consequences without fairness would undermine the very rules they are supposed to support.

God, in fairness, will bring a reward "to give every man according as his work shall be" (Rev. 22:12). "For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (Eccl. 12:14).

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, this is not a fair reproduction of what was said. You left out what I actually said. By leaving out what MM was commenting on, and then making your own comment on something else I said, which MM did not quote, you are giving the false impression that MM quoted something I did not say, which is not fair.

This is what I said, which MM quoted:



*This* is the idea (not that God "tortures") that I have asserted you are advocating. I've asserted this a number of times, and asked you repeatedly to correct it if it not accurate, and have commented that I hope it is not accurate, as I think it's a dreadful idea, but up to now you have made no comment. Do you now wish to do so? I hope you do. If this is misrepresenting your idea, please let me know in what way it is doing so, and I will glad stop characterizing it this way.

Regarding "torture," surely you can see the difference between spanking a child and setting it on fire.

Regarding the time element, what I've said is that Ellen White, in describing the false view of those who believe the soul is immortal, termed it "unceasing tortures." I've made the comment that if the only difference in your view and theirs is the time element, then you are believing in "tortures which cease." So I've asked you what is the difference in your view, and the false view, other than the time element.

GC, I don't see that you responded to my point here, and I can't recall you're having done so elsewhere. My point is that she describes the false view as "unceasing tortures." If the only difference between your view, and the false view she describes is the time element, then your view could be characterized as "tortures which cease." So I'm asking you how your view differs from the false view, in some way other than the time element.

Regarding the punishment of the wicked, I have made no suggestion that the punishments will be equal, so I don't know why you are discussing this.

I haven't been following this discussion but, as I see it, there is little doubt that hell will be a place of torture, the main one being the mental torture. Many who believe in "unceasing tortures," including some Catholic exponents, don't even believe in a hell of fire.

You didn't address my point. Since one tiny sin is enough to cause people to die instantly of emotional anguish, why do you think resurrected sinners are able to endure millions of major sins in their dilapidated state without dying instantly after encountering the first sin? Obviously their ability to suffer so will be unnatural. Not even Jesus was able to suffer so without supernatural aid. And He managed to suffer for every sin ever committed in just 6 hours. Why do you think it will take some sinners several days to suffer for their sins?

GC, has Tom misunderstood what you're saying? Are you saying God will engulf the wicked in fire and then keep them alive supernaturally so they can be punished in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness? Never mind, for the moment, that Tom said "for the purpose of torturing them for many hours or many days".

PS - For the record, I haven't ruled out the idea that God will engulf the wicked with fire from above and from below and then keep them alive supernaturally so that they can be punished according to their sinfulness. Neither the Bible nor the SOP says so one way or the other. Both simply say literal fire will be present.

Tom,

If you would look carefully at what you were saying, you'll not misunderstand what I am saying in response.


It appears to me that you are saying what you say you are not saying.


Until you cease using the term "torture" in such a pejorative manner, I don't see a need to respond.

Suffice it to say-- if you see hell as casting God as a tyrant, you have an incorrect view of both.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The Bible and the SOP both say there will be literal fire.





Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't have any idea what combination of the physical, emotional, or spiritual will cause some to suffer longer than others. I object to the use of "torture" because it would, in Ellen White's own words, present God as a cruel tyrant. God's punishments are not merely for the purpose of torturing hated enemies. They are for the purpose of recompense for sin.

That said, hell will by no means be a pleasant place. It will be a place of suffering. Mrs. White uses the term "suffer." Neither she, nor the Bible, elaborates on what the actual form or causation of the suffering is to be. Suffice it to say, we don't want to be there!

Mrs. White does say that the saints of God will participate in deciding the judgments for the lost sinners during the 1000 years in Heaven. This leads me to conclude that God will have a means of measuring the judgments to each of the lost, and that neither Satan, nor the lost themselves, will have any control over it.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't agree with your assumptions here.

To address why I think some will suffer more than others, I think that some of sinned more than others, and have had more light, and that it is these things which causes their suffering. So those who have had more light and sinned more suffer more than those who have had less.



If you look through this thread, you'll see that the overwhelming majority of the time I've written "for the purpose of causing them excruciating pain for many hours or many days." To my mind (and the dictionary definition of "torture") this is equivalent to "torture," but in difference to those who dislike this label, I've used the expression "for the purpose of causing them excruciating pain for many hours or many days." the vast majority of the time.



What I've said is "set them on fire." I'm talking about like a torch.

I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. You interpret this to mean that you will be sitting on judgment on people, presumably people you know, so loved ones and friends, and deciding for how long a period they should be set on fire? So if you have, God forbid, some relative who is not among the blessed, your job will be to say, "I think my (fill in the blank; some family member or friend) should burn for X days"? And you're OK with this? And this is what you think God is like, that He would ask you to do something like this?

The real issue here hasn't been dealt with, and that's one regarding God's character. What would God be like if He set people on fire, using supernatural power to keep them alive, so that the fire that engulfs them doesn't consume them, or kill them, or even damage their nerve endings, for the purpose of torturing them for many hours or many days?


As I pointed out to MM, the vast majority of the time I've used the expression "to cause excruciating pain." To my mind, these are equivalent expressions (as the dictionary agrees with as well), but as you have taken issue with "torture" I've used this other expression the vast majority of the time.



I'm sorry to have used "torture" in such a pejorative manner. I will try to use it in a less pejorative fashion.



What I've been asking you, and so far have not gotten a response, as far as I can remember, is what the difference is between your view and the false representation of GC 535-536, which Ellen White terms "unceasing tortures" (her words, not mind) other than the time element. If there's no difference, then your view is the same as the "unceasing tortures" except that the acts which when they do not cease are termed "unceasing tortures" do not continue without ceasing.

Tom,

I must admit the way you put things was very funny.

Tom,

Let's consider a few facts here:

1) The wicked lost, during the 1000-years "millennium," are all dead.
2) Their probation has already closed, by God's own judgment, before this time period.
3) Ellen White tells us we saints, with Jesus, will judge them--and that this is to be our job during the 1000 years.
4) Mrs. White says this judgment that the saints and Jesus will perform is for the purpose of meting "out to the wicked according to the deeds done in the body, and that which they must receive at the execution of the judgment is set off against their names."
5) The words in that quote are angel's words. Mrs. White did not herself say this, but quoted an angel.

Do you have some other way of interpreting? Based on the facts here, it would appear to me that there is simply no other way to interpret.

God is fair. He executes the judgment against the wicked with a jury of their peers. This increases the fairness of the judgment.

I do not, however, believe that the saints will be in Heaven saying things like "Aha! This is my chance for revenge against that old enemy of mine!" No, indeed. The saints will be very humble about this, realizing how near they were themselves to such treatment, and also still being hurt that their loved ones are not there. The saints will certainly be merciful, for they have adopted Christ-like characters, and God is merciful.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

The word "torture" has two forms: noun and verb. As a verb, anyone who does this is cruel. God is not cruel. As a noun, I might agree that this term can be applied to hell. Hell will be a place of intense suffering.

However, Ellen White was careful not to use "torture" at all in reference to the true depiction of hell. As her writings are inspired, I think it best to avoid the term as well.

Your usage of the word "torture" in this thread has frequently been the verb form, which casts God in the wrong light, and which is entirely untrue. For these reasons I have requested that you refrain from using this word.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Now, regarding "torture," Tom, I don't see how the physical torture would make God seem cruel but the mental torture wouldn't - and you admit that there will be mental torture. I don't think that God will impose one and the other will be self-imposed. What applies to one must apply to the other.
And Mike's point is perfectly valid - how can the sins of some kill them "in a moment" while the sins of others will do so only after "many days"? If the idea of the wicked being kept supernaturally alive applies to the physical suffering, it also applies to the mental suffering.

Ok, let's try that then. I'll use the noun form. I've asked you if there's any difference between your view, and the one EGW describes as "unceasing tortures" other than the time element. If not, the phrase "tortures which cease" would seem to be accurate, given what you've said so far. Do you agree?



Yes, indeed! Do you think the reason could be that there's actually a difference between the true view and the false other than the time element? That possibility immediately jumps to mind.



I think it's best to understand why she didn't use the term, rather than just avoid using it because she didn't.



Please help me understand this. Saying that God will set people on fire for the purpose of causing the excruciating pain does not cast God in the wrong light? But saying that God tortures someone does? Why should this be the case?

This doesn't make any sense to me, but I'll abide by your wishes. I'll write out the phrase as "God's setting people on fire for the purpose of causing the excruciating pain." You haven't complained about this phrase, although I've used it a lot (far more frequently that "torture").

Other than this means that the righteous will determine how long a person should be set on fire? You really think this is the only possible way to interpret this?



Before I comment, I want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying correctly. I'm understanding you to say that the only possible way that you see to interpret what Ellen White wrote is that the righteous will determine for how long a period the wicked should be set on fire?



This implies you perceiving setting people on fire to be a fair thing to do.



This implies you believe that a jury of their peers also view setting them on fire a fair thing to do.



Ok, the saints will be humble in determining how long their family members, (spouse, children, parents) should be set on fire. I don't see how your comment in regards to mercy applies here. Isn't your idea that the righteous will determine, by looking at the evidence, exactly how long those being examined should be set on fire for? Mercy implies they recommend being set on fire for less time than the evidence indicates. But this isn't what you think, is it? Don't you think they should be set on fire for exactly the amount of time the evidence indicates? So what you're really advocating is (what you perceive to be) justice without mercy, isn't it?

I note you didn't answer my questions. I'll repeat them and answer them in accordance to my understanding what you think the correct answers are:

Q.You interpret this to mean that you will be sitting on judgment on people, presumably people you know, so loved ones and friends, and deciding for how long a period they should be set on fire?

A.Yes.

Q.So if you have, God forbid, some relative who is not among the blessed, your job will be to say, "I think my (fill in the blank; some family member or friend) should burn for X days"?

A.Yes.

Q.And you're OK with this?

A.Yes.

Q.And this is what you think God is like, that He would ask you to do something like this?

A.Yes.


Is this correct? You would answer each of these questions "yes"?

If God tortured the wicked mentally or physically, I would see this as cruel. I don't believe God does this. I believe all their suffering comes as a result of their own choice, and believe that DA 764 says precisely this.



The wicked suffer and die as a result of their own choice, not as a result of something God imposes upon them, either mentally or physically. This is DA 764.



The purpose of the judgment, or a purpose of the judgment, is to go through one's life point by point, and bring to light everything that happened in a person's life. Every wrong decision causes suffering. The more light there was, the more suffering there is. So a person who has committed more sin, and had more light, suffers more than a person who committed fewer sins and had less light.

My impression from previous comments that you have made on this subject is that you do not believe that God will set the wicked on fire (like a torch), supernaturally keeping them alive so that they can suffer excruciating pain. Is this correct?

You commented on how funny you thought what I wrote was (I guess because you saw it as absurd(?)), which leads me to comment on how funny I view this whole discussion to be. I cannot fathom how a Christian, a person who supposedly believes in Christ, could even for a moment entertain the idea that God would set someone on fire in order to make him/her suffer physical excruciating pain! How is this even possible to consider?

Now this is why, in regards to the conversation on the acts of violence attributed to God in the OT, that I have said to MM that I have felt time would be better spent discussing the judgment and the atonement. Surely a person who views as a viable possibility that God will set people on fire for many hours or many days, supernaturally keeping them alive so they can suffer more pain, couldn't see anything objectionable to the traditional views of the violent acts attributed to God in the OT.

Tom,

Do you agree that the above mentioned numbered points are factual?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I agree. Literal fire will be present, but whether or not it will play a part in why they suffer has not been made clear in the Bible or the SOP. What is clear, though, is that agonizing guilt will not cause them to suffer according their sinfulness and then end in death.

Do you agree one tiny sin would have been enough to cause A&E to die of emotional agony?

Do you agree Jesus required supernatural help to suffer and die on the cross?

Do you agree Jesus suffered for every sin ever committed in 6 hours on the cross?

If you agree with all three points, what do you disagree with? Please elaborate.

Please respond to my post.

My disagreement is with your interpretation of the numbered points, not the points themselves. In particular, I see nothing in the five points which would imply that the righteous will be deciding how long people should be set on fire, let alone this being the only possible interpretation.

You didn't address her point, namely, the idea God must keep the wicked supernaturally alive so that they can suffer unimaginable emotional pain is hardly less objectionable. Otherwise, you are forced to say one sin is not enough to cause emotional agony ending in death.

GC, do you believe God will set the wicked "on fire"?

This is from "The Desire of Ages"



This brings out that Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy no longer pleads for the guilty race, and how the sense of sin broke His heart. I don't see how, given this, you could conclude that it's clear that the mental anguish which caused Christ's death, which is the anguish which the wicked will feel, won't cause their death.



The death was was ours is the death which Christ suffered, which is that spoken of above in the DA 753 quote. Christ suffered this death so we wouldn't have to. So, again, I don't see how you can say it's clear it isn't the case that the wicked will die the death Christ suffered when this says that Christ suffered that death.



No, with respect to "tiny sin."





I'm not sure what you're saying here. I believe Christ would have died in Gethsemane had not God sent an angel to strengthen Him. Are you saying something like this?



Not in the sense that you do.



I explained the first, and asked for clarification on the second one. Regarding the third one, I think you view Christ's suffering for every sin in the sense of each sin is equivalent to a certain amount of pain that must be inflicted, so that pain was inflicted to Christ, so it wouldn't have to be inflicted to us. I don't see that God inflicts anyone with pain to make them suffer for their sins, but that sin itself causes pain. Christ suffered for every sin because He took upon Him the sin of the world. So I do agree that Christ suffered for every sin, but not in an imposed sense of inflicted pain.

Yes I did. I said I don't believe this is what happens.



You're argument is that if it's not true that God must keep the wicked supernaturally alive so that they can suffer unimaginable emotional pain then it must follow that one sin is not enough to cause emotional agony ending in death? This doesn't look like a valid argument.

In order for an argument to be valid, the premise must be true. If the premise is false, the argument isn't valid. Your premise is "God must keep the wicked supernaturally alive so that they can suffer unimaginable emotional pain." I disagree with this premise, especially with the idea that God's purpose is that the wicked suffer unimaginable emotional pain. You also seem to be implying that God causes this pain, and if so, I disagree with that too.

Tom,

You still have not responded to my post, which was posted before you asked further questions on it. Please respond to it, after which I will consider responding to those questions.

If you have another interpretation on it, let's hear it. That's what this discussion is about.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

What's the number of the post you're referring to? (that I didn't respond to).

Regarding my interpretation, I think the righteous will examine the evidence, and will agree with God's judgment. I don't think the penalty for sin is an arbitrary, or imposed, penalty, but the consequence of the choices made. As EGW puts it in DA 764:



I think the meting out process is one of a recognition of reality, not a creation of reality. Iow, the righteous recognize the true condition of the wicked, and agree with the conclusions God has come to, the primary one being why they weren't raised in the first resurrection.

There's no suggestion that the righteous will be involved in determining for how long a period of time the wicked should be set on fire.

She is clearly not saying the wicked will suffer emotional anguish for the same reasons Jesus did. The wicked are sin-hardened and, therefore, incapable of suffering emotional anguish ending in death.


Do you think one sin would have been enough to cause A&E to suffer emotional agony ending in death?


Yes. Do you agree He needed supernatural aid because His physical body could not survive the emotional agony of the sins of the world? Please elaborate.


Tom, it is this kind of answer that unnecessarily prolongs our discussions. Next time please address the obvious intent of this kind of question. Jesus was on the cross for 6 hours. Within that time frame He suffered for the sins of the world. It didn't require several days of suffering. Why not?


The fact A&E did not suffer emotional agony ending in death when they sinned is due to the fact God veiled the radiant fire light of His glorious presence. Conversely, it is the unveiled radiant fire light of God's glorious presence that will consume the flesh of sin-hardened sinners in the lake of fire at the end of time. There is nothing imposed about it. It is simply the natural result of sinful flesh being exposed to the unveiled radiant fire light of God's glorious presence.

In the case of Jesus on the cross, it required something supernatural to cause Him to suffer as if He committed the sins of the world. it could not happen naturally. In this sense He was inflicted with suffering. Suffering was imposed on Him. However, unlike the wicked at the end of time, Jesus' suffering did not end in death. Instead, He tasted and consumed sin and death. Then He laid down His life. He died the first death.

But you still haven't explained why you think the resurrected wicked will be able to physically survive suffering emotional agony for millions of sins without dying after revisiting their first sin in judgment. Please elaborate.

Then you agree it is hardly less objectionable.


I'm saying one sin was enough to cause A&E emotional agony ending in death. Do you agree? If not, why not?


God had to keep Jesus alive supernaturally so that He could physically survive suffering for the sins of the world. Why should it surprise you He must do the same for the wicked at the end of time? Otherwise, they would die prematurely, before suffering for all the sins they committed.


Actually, I disagree with the whole idea, namely, that the wicked will suffer emotional agony for each and every sin they committed eventually ending in death. However, if I did agree with it, I would say their emotional agony is inherent, not arbitrarily imposed or inflicted. Do you think the wicked will be physically able to suffer for the millions of sins they committed without supernatural aid to sustain them (like God had to with Jesus)? Please elaborate.

No. I disagree with your statement that "God must keep the wicked supernaturally alive so that they can suffer unimaginable emotional pain."



I would say that one sin was enough to cause A&E to die, and that that death would involve emotional agony.



How so?



Their sins cause their suffering and death. Why should God need to do something supernatural to enable this to happen?



Did I say this? No. I don't understand why you wish to change the wording of things which are said. Why not say things the way I said them, or quote me?



So we agree on this point (i.e., with the qualification you stated).



No, I think they'll die.

I think this theory of yours holds no merit. She says, "Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race" (therefore the anguish is the same). She then describes that anguish. She looks to be saying something diametrically opposed to what you are saying.



I would say that one sin was enough to cause A&E to die, and that that death would involve emotional agony.



If you are speaking of Gethsemane, I believe Christ would have died in Gethsemane had not God sent an angel to strengthen Him.



I addressed this in the next comment. Perhaps you should read through the entire post carefully before responding.



Why would radiant fire light cause emotional agony? That doesn't make sense. The passages in DA 107, 108 which speak of this describe the fire in terms of God's character. However, that God's character would do so makes perfect sense, as EGW explains in DA 108. The goodness of God's character makes clear the ugliness of our own, which causes mental and emotional distress.



Again, this doesn't agree with the thoughts expressed in DA 107, 108.



This is true. No imposed fire.



Again, not EGW's point in DA 107, 108 where she discusses this.



So this was imposed.



Ok, you're agreeing with my characterization of this. I disagree with your idea. Christ's sufferings were not artificially imposed, but were the natural consequence of His bearing our sin.



As EGW explains in the passage I've cited, Christ felt the anguish which the wicked will feel when mercy no longer pleads for the guilty race.



I don't think they'll survive. I think they'll die.

Well, it seems to me God “imposes” the judgment upon them – in the sense that they *have to* face their acts, although they would prefer not to face them.


More and graver sins mean more suffering, and this would hasten death, not delay it – since the death is caused by the suffering.


We know there will be external fire, but I’m not sure at which point it will act. Maybe after the internal fire has done its work. I used to think that they would act simultaneously, but I’m no longer sure about this.

“Against every evildoer God's law utters condemnation. He may disregard that voice, he may seek to drown its warning, but in vain. It follows him. It makes itself heard. It destroys his peace. If unheeded, it pursues him to the grave. It bears witness against him at the judgement. A quenchless fire, it consumes at last soul and body.” {Ed 144.5}

We read of chains of darkness for the transgressor of God's law. We read of the worm that dieth not, and of the fire that is not quenched. Thus is represented the experience of every one who has permitted himself to be grafted into the stock of Satan, who has cherished sinful attributes. When it is too late, he will see that sin is the transgression of God's law. He will realize that because of transgression, his soul is cut off from God, and that God's wrath abides on him. This is a fire unquenchable, and by it every unrepentant sinner will be destroyed. Satan strives constantly to lead men into sin, and he who is willing to be led, who refuses to forsake his sins, and despises forgiveness and grace, will suffer the result of his course. {ST, April 14, 1898 par. 13}

GC 541-543 says the judgment is for their own benefit, and God uses the principles of kindness, mercy and love. Not the usual way of thinking about this, is it? Certainly doesn't sound like setting someone on fire so they can experience excruciating pain.



Why do you think the death is caused by suffering?



Given the evidence, it doesn't make sense that God would set people on fire to make them suffer. For example, consider GC 541-543. This idea simply doesn't fit. Also DA 107, 108, and DA 764.

Also the entire revelation of Jesus Christ! Imagine, God setting people on fire to make them suffer. It boggles my mind that people, who claim to believe in Christ, have this idea about God.

Good. It is so nice of you to tell us how kind God will be toward those who land in hell. In fact, come to think of it, why should not those with tickets to this destination be quite content with their prize? There's certainly nothing to fear, right?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

They have no option as to whether to face the judgment, and God knows that the judgment will bring them terrible suffering.


It isn't? The mental suffering caused Jesus' death and Ellen White says clearly in the quotes I posted that the sense of condemnation, the sense of God's wrath against sin, will destroy both the soul and the body of the wicked. Besides, if they aren't going to die because of a literal fire, how are they going to die?


I wasn't thinking about people being set on fire by God, but more in terms of what MM said, that is, the fire being simply the natural result of sinful flesh being exposed to God's glory.

According to GC 541-543, the judgment is for their own benefit, and God uses the principles of kindness, mercy and love.



I asked why you think this.



Did the suffering cause the death, or did the same thing that caused the suffering cause the death?



The idea that I'm most interested in is whether the wicked will be set on fire, like a torch, or Molotov cocktail, screaming in agony, supernaturally kept alive so they can excruciating pain can continue, in order to make them pay for their sins.

I don't understand how your answer addresses my question. Do you think the resurrected wicked will be physically able to survive the accumulating emotional agony of millions of sins without dying before they pay for all their sins? If so, do you think they will need supernatural assistance? If not, why not? Please elaborate.

Which is worse in your mind, Tom? That is, God setting sinners on fire and keeping them alive supernaturally so they can pay for all their sins? Or, God exposing sinners to His unveiled presence so that they can suffer for all their sins?

BTW, you haven't explained how the wicked will be able to physically survive the unveiled presence of God long enough to pay for all their sins. What will prevent them from dying immediately rather than suffering for many hours or many days?

I don't think you're thinking of this in the right way. I think the judgment will reveal reality to the wicked. What is revealed will include their sins, the times they turned away from Christ, and so forth. They will see their life as it really was, and what they see will cause them suffering depending upon how much light they have had and what they have done.



I think these are two bad ideas you have. Why does it matter which bad idea is worse than the other?



I don't think this is looking at things in the right way, as I explained above. Consider the following:



This tells us that heaven would be torture for the wicked. The judgment reveals reality to the wicked. They recognize this, and voluntarily choose to be excluded from heaven. Before making this decision, there is suffering involved, in proportion to the light they have had and the sin they have committed, as reality is made clear to them.

Ellen White says,

"They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, 'according to their works,' but finally ending in the second death." {GC 544.2}

Is this how you see things? Notice she mentions the "duration" of the punishment, and in GC 673.1 she says,

"Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days."

Yes, I believe the wicked will suffer in proportion to their sin, and the light they've had. I don't think this is an imposed or arbitrary punishment, but the result of the judgment. That is, the revelation of the truth causes "weeping and gnashing of teeth." The wicked realize the sins they've committed, in their true bearing, as well as what they've lost. Those who have had greater light will realize this more clearly, and thus suffer more.

I think the intensity is a key point. It's not that God has some fires which are turned up hotter than for others, but the suffering varies in intensity according to the light a person has had.

How does that apply to the "supernaturally alive to suffer" concept? The reality of the lost is that they have separated themselves from the Source of life; hence, they die. But how can they stay alive to suffer this revelation of reality, some of them for days, while apart from God, the Source of life? Are they kept alive by their own, innate "life force" (even though they have already been dead for a thousand years)? Or are they kept alive by God?

But how are they alive, after being dead for a thousand years, in order to "suffer in proportion to their sin"? By what power do they have life?

Now you sound like you're saying what some of us have been saying all along. But you claimed to us that this was "torture" or "excruciating pain" and that it was unlike God because of its duration. Yet you also believe in the longer durations the same as I?

(Shaking my head.)

I think the REAL difference in your view and mine comes down to this: you do not believe that sin is so bad. It is not "exceedingly" evil, and therefore neither deserves a severe punishment, nor receives such.

Additionally, you appear to see Inspiration as being incorrect in one point. When God is said to have mercy, there are balancing statements which say His wrath will be "unmixed with mercy." Yet you believe this is false, right? You believe God will still have mercy, am I right?

While I believe in mercy, and that God is merciful, there is nothing in the text to indicate His wrath will be lessened on account of mercy. The punishment will be what was deserved, not some comfortable, painless death. Neither will God be a tyrant. The punishment will not exceed what was deserved, as if dealt in a spiteful spirit.

The following deals with the final plagues: "They will drink the cup of his wrath, unmixed with mercy." {CTBH 155.2}

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I didn't claim, I asked. I've asked for clarification. Over and over I've asked if you believe God will set people on fire for the purpose of causing them excruciating pain. If this isn't what you think, please just answer my question, and clarify.

Regarding the suffering being of different durations, I've said repeatedly that the wicked suffering according to their sin, and the light they've had. Clearly this isn't the same for every individual.



What's up with this? Where have I said even one thing to indicate I would think the suffering of the wicked would be the same for all?



I would say the reverse. You see sin as basically innocuous of itself, meaning that God must kill those who practice it, since it doesn't have the power do destroy itself.



On the contrary, because it is exceeding evil, it does not need artificially imposed sanctions against those who practice it.



This object applies as much to your view as mine. You don't believe God is merciful, so therefore you disagree with inspiration on this point (that the principles of kindness, mercy, and love are involved in the judgment).

Certainly setting someone on fire is not kind.

Also, you seem to disagree on another point, which is that the judgment is for the benefit of the wicked. I don't see how your view harmonizes with this.



I just quoted from Ellen White, who said the principles of kindness, mercy and judgment will be exercised. I didn't say anything beyond this regarding mercy.



Your idea is that the punishment will be setting them on fire, like a torch, right? Why would this be deserved? Wouldn't some other more human means of punishment be possible? Is this how you would punish someone? Is it your view that the reason you wouldn't do this (assuming you wouldn't) but God does is because He is greater than you are?



Again, GC, all I did was quote from GC 542. I don't know why you're taking issue with what I said, regarding mercy, given all I did was quote from here.

All life comes from God. Nobody, at any time, has life of themselves.



All life comes from God. Nobody, at any time, has life of themselves.

The main point I've been arguing against is that God will punishment people in the judgment by setting them on fire, supernaturally keeping them alive so they can suffer excruciating pain.

Let me explain the supernatural part a bit. The scene is described as a lake of fire. Given that beneath the crust of the earth is a sea of molten lava, and other parallels with the flood (remember that there was a great deal of water underneath the earth's crust before the flood) I'm led to think that the fire spoken of as a lake of fire will be molten lava. Now molten lava is extremely hot, and would kill someone in a matter of seconds. So the only way that they could be alive to suffer more excruciating pain would be for God to do something to keep them from being destroyed by the lava. So the supernaturally being kept alive here is of a different character than the sense in which God keeps people alive normally.

I want to make sure I am understanding correctly where people stand on this question. It is my understanding that, in regards to setting people on fire, like a torch, for days or hours at a time, that

1.This is what GC thinks.
2.Arnold is leaning towards this idea.
3.MM does not think this is what will happen, but isn't totally ruling it out.
4.Rosangela perhaps used to think this, but doesn't now. I'm not sure if she's ruled this out or not.

I can't recall if kland or teresaq are contributing to this thread, but I'm quite sure they don't have this idea. I think I've accounted for everyone who is engaged in this discussion.

Thanks in advance for your clarifications on my understanding of your positions here.

So we agree that the fact that despite having been dead for at least a thousand years, the lost will find themselves up and about, conscious, and alive enough to be able to suffer such mental anguish that they will weep and gnash their teeth until they die again, is caused by an act of power by God. This is in contrast to the lost causing this miracle to happen himself, or his circumstances naturally precipitating such a return from the dead. Agreed?

Furthermore, I think we agree that Satan, after having irrevocably separated himself from the Source of life, has been alive all this time - suffering some of the inevitable effects of sin for about 6000 years, and will continue to live until after he suffers the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" after many days - only by the life that God chooses to give him. Agreed?

My point is that whether it is by fire or mental anguish, Hell ain't no picnic. Weeping and gnashing of teeth, whether precipitated by physical pain or mental pain or both, is a bad thing. And whether the wicked is kept alive in a fire, or made alive to suffer mental anguish after a thousand years of respite, he is not alive in any natural or normal way.

In fact, if you think about it, it could be argued that any sinner, no matter the degree of sin, cannot be alive normally. The normal way to live is by perfect obedience to God's law. The only way for a sinner to live is by God supernaturally keeping him alive. Hence, Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

That is correct.

Tom,

Regarding where I stand, you have not clearly outlined my position. It's a "close but not quite" kind of thing. First of all, I do not believe lava will play a major role in the fire. I believe what the Bible and Mrs. White have said about it, which is that there will be "fire and brimstone" and that "the elements shall melt with a fervent heat." If you call this "lava," fine, but I do not see it as having come from the depths of the earth, but rather the surface. As for the "lake of fire," this is, in my view, actual fire, i.e. flames, and not lava. According to Mrs. While, the oil reserves will contribute to the burning. I do not see the wicked as being immersed in molten rock so much as immersed in flame -- like the burning bush, and like the three Hebrew worthies in the fiery furnace.

The flame itself is more or less what Mike likes to call "the firelight of God's presence." God is a fire. The Bible says this, and also represents it. Of course, since Jesus as a human never appeared like a fire, you are free to disagree. That disagreement can in no wise remove the facts from the case. Jesus was the pillar of fire in the wilderness, according to inspiration. He was also the fire in the burning bush. The Holy Spirit was also the fire that came down upon the apostles at Pentecost.

Isaiah 43 tells us that the righteous will walk in this fire and not be burned. Revelation tells us we should be tried in this fire, like gold, that we may be pure. Those who are impure will find that this fire consumes them. Psalm 1 tells us "therefore, the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knoweth the way of righteous, but the way of the ungodly shall perish." Isaiah 33:14 and onward describes those who will be able to dwell with the "everlasting burnings."

It's the same Fire, which throughout the Bible is said to be "eternal" and "everlasting." Only God is an eternal fire. The wicked are to perish in this Everlasting Fire.

The fire will be used for two purposes:

1) To cleanse the earth and universe of sinners; and
2) To cleanse the earth itself of all trace of sin.

This means that those oil reserves, there because of the flood, must be burned. It means that the satellites in the sky, the space station, etc., must be burned. Even items on the surface of the moon must be burned. It is likely that our entire atmosphere, which has been polluted, must be burned. From a scientific standpoint, God may need to provide additional oxygen to accommodate so much combustion! Nearly everything we see must be burned, and thoroughly so.

As I've said before, I do not have all of the answers to the "why" and "how" questions. But it is a fact that destruction and cleansing will take place.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Two things I'd like to clarify.

1.You believe the wicked will be set on fire, like a torch.
2.God is a literal fire.

I'm getting #2 from this statement:



You're saying that the wicked perish in the Everlasting Fire, which is God. You're also saying that the fire that burns the wicked is literal fire, and they are literally set on fire, like a torch. So I'm concluding that if, on the one hand, the Fire that burns the wicked is God, and if, on the other hand, the fire that burns the wicked is literal fire, then God is literal fire.

Either that or you are speaking of two different fires that simultaneously burn the wicked. Perhaps you have that in mind.

By saying, "You're saying" what I mean is "I understand you to be saying."

This is a rather long sentence, with a lot of assumptions in the middle of it, so just answering "yes" or "no" is apt to be misunderstood. I agree that the lost will be resurrected by God's power. I also agree that once alive, they will be conscious, and able to experience various things. I don't agree with the way you phrased these things. God gives them over to experience the results of the choices they have made. This is a way I'd put it.



You're asking if the lost resurrect themselves? If so, no, neither the lost or the wicked resurrect themselves.



This is affirming that Satan lives by life given by God, right? If so, I agree with this.



If the lost suffer as a result of the choices they have made, that's a much different issue to consider than if they suffer because someone sets them on fire.



I disagree that the wicked is made alive to suffer mental anguish. Also, why do you not think he is alive in a natural or normal way? Do you mean because he's been resurrected? Or did you have something else in mind?



You could look at it this way. And when God quits protecting the lost person from the effects of sin, he dies.

This is a different point than the one I was making, however, which has to do with the fact that fire consumes a person, and causes his death. Something analogous would be if God made someone to suffer by drowning him, but the drowning took hours or days to occur, instead of minutes. So God supernaturally allowed the person to "breath" underwater, or at least not die, so the person could suffer.

At any rate, the salient points are:

1.God wants the person to suffer.
2.God takes action for the specific person of causing the person to suffer.
3.God takes additional action to prevent the action He took in the point above to cause the death of the person being made to suffer, but to allow the person to suffer more.

I disagree with the whole concept that God wants anyone to suffer. I also think the idea that God would deliberately cause one to suffer for hours or days at a time by setting them on fire is barbarous and cruel beyond comprehension, and have no idea whatsoever how anyone who believes in Christ could have such a conception of God as to think He could possibly do such a thing.

Did I phrase it inaccurately? Is it not the case that you believe that "to experience the results of the choices they have made" is equivalent to "such mental anguish that they will weep and gnash their teeth until they die again"? Isn't that terrible mental anguish the result of their choices?


Do you also agree that Satan has lived all of these years completely separated from God, and therefore has enjoyed no pleasure whatsoever?


But they suffer nothing during the thousand years. God, by His divine power, causes events that result in their suffering to the point of eternal death. Isn't that what you've been saying all along?


Will not the wicked, every single one, suffer mental anguish? And are not the wicked, every single one, able to suffer such mental anguish because God raised them from the dead?

Once God makes one of the lost again, is there any hope that he can avoid the mental anguish? I don't think so. Therefore, by raising the lost from the dead, God is guaranteeing that the lost will suffer mental anguish to the point of eternal death.


The reason the wicked being alive is neither natural nor normal, is because he is alive while being separated from God. The natural, normal consequence of being separated from Life is death. Yet, there will be, and there are many now, who are separated from God, yet are not dead.


Isn't separation from God one of the effects of sin? And when one is separated from God, how can he have life? He can't. But the lost are able to "experience the results of the choices they have made" because God keeps them alive long enough to do so.


Separation from God, the life Giver, causes death. But the lost will live long enough, some of them for many days, to suffer. You believe that, don't you?


1. Doesn't God want the sinner to experience the results of the choices he has made? Doesn't that cause lots of suffering?
2. Doesn't God specifically raise the wicked from the dead, knowing the inevitable suffering to follow?
3. That's what God is going to do by raising the wicked from the dead, right? If He wanted to minimize suffering, He could easily leave them dead.


Then why will He raise the wicked dead? Suffering is inevitable at that point.


Yet you believe that God would deliberately cause one to suffer for hours or days at a time by waking them from the dead, and having them experience mental anguish to the point of eternal death. Right?

Regarding GC's analysis of your position on sin, I wouldn't put it his way, but neither do I believe your way. It seems that you believe sin is bad, and will cause suffering and death, but not as much suffering as being burned. So, the martyrs who died on the stake will have suffered more than the eternally lost. I disagree. I think the suffering of the wicked will exceed any physical pain possible.

Tom,

On this point, the Bible appears too clear to be misunderstood.

God is a great many things. The Bible says God is love. It also says God is eternal, God is one, God is a consuming fire, God is light, etc. Jesus said "I AM the way, the truth and the life." We could add many things here. So when I speak of God being a fire, note that I am speaking of literal fire, but I am not reducing God to merely this, for God is all of the above, and more, combined.

Hebrews 12:29 says plainly that God is a consuming fire. The word "fire" in Greek means simply that: Fire, flames, or fiery. It is the exact same Greek work used in the following contexts:


To repeat that the "worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" three times is significant. The Bible never repeats like this without purpose. What is more, these are Jesus' own words. Jesus Himself gave us this repetition. Once again, the word for "fire" here is the identical word used in Hebrews 12:29.

It is also the same word used throughout the book of Revelation with one single exception: the "breastplates of fire" uses another Greek word referring to the color of fire: fiery, shining like fire.

Thus, it is undeniable that God has referred to Himself as being a fire. Ellen White tells us that it is this fire which will destroy the wicked--the Fire of God.


The above is what Mike has almost quaintly termed the "firelight of God's glory." God is light. God is fire. Betwixt the two of them, the wicked will not stand in His presence, but will be consumed. Don't ask me how--the Bible doesn't say. We don't know if God exudes pure, combustible oxygen, and the light of His countenance provides spark, or if God is simply so hot, that the light emanating from Him is like that of the sun concentrated through a huge magnifying glass...we simply do not know the mechanism. He is God. His power should not be irreverently spoken of. As God chose not to touch the bush with His Fire in the wilderness, it would seem He can choose to preserve in spite of the flames. It is exactly this that allows the righteous to exist in His presence.

Again, I have never attempted to provide an answer as to the mechanism for the fire, other than to say there will be literal fire. I have never said "like a torch." I do not know what it will be like, and I do not believe any of us does. I do know that just as Heaven will exceed our imaginations for glory, hell will exceed our imaginations for its awfulness. Our senses are rather dull now. Following a thousand years in Heaven, the senses will have dramatically increased in acuity and perception. Hell will not be pleasant for anyone. There will still be tears. But after hell, God will wipe those away.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You phrased it awkwardly I'd say. If you're going to ask a yes/no question, I think it works better to have a clear, explicit thought, so one it's clear what precisely one is agreeing with. So I split up the sentence to make clear what it is I agreed with.



If one says that God raises up the lost so they can experience X, that implies, or, at a minimum, can be read as implying, that it is God's will that the wicked experience X. I don't believe this is the case. That is, God does not will that the wicked suffer. They will suffer, but not because God desires them to.



You're talking about since he left heaven?



No, I've been saying that the wicked suffer as a result of their own choices.



I disagree with this. The wicked guarantee that they suffer and die by the choices they make. In so doing, they act contrary to God's will. God asks, "Why will you die?"



One could say a similar thing in regards to anyone who has sinned. Anyone who has sinned, should be dead. However, I tried to make clear that in speaking of God's supernaturally keeping people alive who have been set on fire, I was not speaking of this, but speaking of His intervening is a specific profess, that of burning, in such a way that the fire does not consume matter normally, but in a way that prolongs suffering. The whole point of the fire looks to be to cause the maximum amount of suffering, for some reason, presumably to make the wicked pay for what they have done.



EGW says both these things, right? So yes, I believe these. I don't understand the "but." She didn't say something contradictory, did she?


No. He would prefer to make them happy. (GC 541)



Yes.



No, this is wrong.



There's other things involved than simply God's desire on this point. It's certainly true that God would prefer to minimize their suffering.



I asked this question about 4 or 5 years ago, I think, which led to a topic (on another forum) which, to the best of my knowledge, is still going on, which is a long-winded way of saying this is a good question, but not one easily answered in a few words. However, I'll reiterate that God does not raise the wicked for the purpose of suffering. They suffer because of their own choices, choices which are contrary to God's will.



No, I don't believe this.



That's correct, if you're talking about literal fire. That is, I don't believe sin necessarily causes one to be set on fire.



This isn't a fair comparison. God did not supernaturally act to prevent the fire from acting normally. Therefore their nerve endings were destroyed in the fire. So they didn't suffer even the smallest of percentages of what the wicked will supposedly be made to suffer.



Do you think God will suffer? How much, compared to the righteous? How about the righteous? Do you think they will suffer in the judgment as they watch their loved ones suffering and dying? Do you think they will suffer more or less than the wicked?

I thought the comparison was fair. However, we can add some real "torture" to this list as well. Recall that Isaiah was sawn in two, many martyrs were first tormented with splinters under their nails, drawing up their bound arms being them until they broke, pulling them apart from limb to limb by horses, not to mention more modern forms like electric shock. Should the lost suffer less than these righteous? That's the basic question Arnold is presenting.

Of course, you have presented the use of fire as being cruel to begin with. Would it matter to you how long it was utilized? Would two hours be acceptable/too long? Four hours? Six hours (the time Jesus was on the cross)? One day? Where do you draw the line?

The point here is that you are not God to make those decisions. What you think may not be what God thinks. God knows what is just and fair. The watching universe will agree with Him. There will be no voices expressing shock that God would be so "cruel" in that day. On the contrary, many of the watching universe are shocked that He withheld His judgments so long, and extended mercy for so many thousand years--including many centuries past the Atonement where Christ had won the victory.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

First of all, would you agree that these things you are describing are properly termed torture? So aren't you asking if the lost should be tortured more than the righteous were?

Ok, to your question, I think your whole way of thinking here is off. Two wrongs don't make a right. Because martyrs were made to suffer by Satanicly inspired people doesn't mean the lost should be made to suffer more. It's not a contest to see who can cause the most suffering. Surely God would win that context, but is this what God is about? Causing suffering?

Secondly, these tortures you are mentioning, as bad as they are, could not begin to compare with the agony of being set on fire for hours at a time, with God's supernaturally intervening to make sure the people suffer. In the human organism are mechanisms to limit the amount of pain one can experience. Death is one of these! So simply by not permitting the person to die, God would be "winning" the suffering contest right there. Also, presumably, God would be preventing the nerve endings from being damaged, so the person could continue feeling pain. That's also not something that would have happened with the martyrs.

But, again, to my way thinking this whole concept is twisted. The whole idea that the lost should be made to suffer more than the righteous martyrs is not a thought that Jesus Christ would even have, IMO.



Cruelty is Satanic. I would draw the line at any cruelty at all.



What God thinks is what Jesus Christ revealed. I don't see any similarity in what Jesus Christ revealed and the concept of setting people on fire in order to make them suffer. When setting people on fire was suggested to Jesus Christ, He said "you know not what spirit you are of."



Agreed. God will not be cruel. He will exhibit the principles of "kindness, mercy and love," just as GC 542 speaks of. I don't see how setting people on fire for the purpose of causing them to suffer excruciating pain could be construed as "kindness."



God's judgments are not setting people on fire for the purpose of making them suffer. Let me ask, where in the life of Jesus Christ do you find even the remotest hint that this formed a part of His character?

This insight does not explain how the wicked will be able to physically survive revisiting their first sin (not to mention millions more) in the unveiled presence of God without dying. What makes it possible for wicked sinners to survive in the unveiled presence of God for many days without dying? Are you avoiding addressing this point?

Why isn't this idea explained in the last chapter of GC? If you think it is, please quote it.

Tom, why do you think God will resurrect the wicked knowing they will suffer excruciating anguish in His unveiled presence? Why do you think He will expose them to His unveiled presence? Why doesn't He veil His presence so it doesn't cause them such excruciating anguish? And, why doesn't His unveiled presence cause them to die right away? How are they able to live and suffer intense agony for many days?

1) Yes, I believe the martyrs were tortured, and that the word "torture" properly fits what some of them received.

2) No, I am not asking if the lost should be tortured more than the righteous.

It is not a situation of "two wrongs." This is where you are incorrect.

It is a situation of recompense. Did the martyrs deserve the torturing they received? No.

Will the wicked deserve their recompense? Yes.

The difference is huge. One was wrong, while the other is right.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It's all a matter of terms. By using the incorrect terms, one may easily be arguing on the side of Satan, that God is a cruel tyrant for destroying the sinners. That has been Satan's complaint all along, because He chose to misrepresent the truth. Had there been not a particle of truth in what Satan said, he could not so easily have deceived so many. But he twisted some actual truth, and thus maligned God's law and character.

Is God cruel? Of course not. Will He destroy sinners? He most assuredly will. Will He mete out justice in doing so? Of a certain, yes. Yet has He been merciful in delaying His judgments? Yes.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Not the labels, but that act themselves are what I'm referring to. For example, one could douse a person with gasoline, and set the person on fire, and take actions to keep the person alive, so he could suffer more, and label this as not being cruel or whatever, but the action itself speaks louder than the labels.

By the way, GC, I've asked you on multiple occasions, and don't recall ever getting an answer (my apologies if you did answer this, and I'm making you repeat it), but to you see any difference between your view and the one described by Ellen White in GC 536 other than the time element? If so, what's the difference?

It sounded that way to me. You looked to me to be asking if it wasn't fair that the wicked suffer more imposed pain than the martyrs, and if you look up the definition of the word "torture," that's what it is.



I cannot conceive of how one, as a professed follower of Christ, could think that setting someone on fire for the purpose of making him suffer is not a wrong.



No, but the wicked do deserve theirs. So it's OK. I think this idea is 100% contrary to the teachings and character of Christ (and it doesn't matter what word one uses to describe the setting on fire of the wicked for the purpose of causing pain).

Where do you see that Jesus Christ treated anyone even remotely in this way? Or that He suggested that such treatment was OK?



As if changing the labels one uses can change a thing from being wrong to being right. If we call it "recompense" instead of "torture," it's OK.

The concept that God would purposely cause someone excruciating pain for the sole purpose of recompense is one I find completely foreign to the character of God and the teaching of Christ. I don't believe Christ revealed the Father to be such.

I think a key point where we differ is that I believe the wicked choose death. It seems to me that DA 764 and GC 541-543 both teach this. I don't have the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" concept that you have. (as I recall, you saw your view similar to the one presented there; if you don't like this comparison, let me know, and I won't use it, but my recollection is that you agreed with it).

As to why some specific thing isn't mentioned in some specific chapter of some book, perhaps it's because God never intended that that place of that one book be the source of all truth for the subject.



Good question! If you'd like to start a topic on this, we can discuss it. I've pointed out this is a good question in the past, and invited such a topic, while pointing out that I don't think a few sentences would be adequate.



I don't think this is the right way of looking at this. I suggest reading GC 541-543.



How do you know He doesn't?



I think you're assuming things which are false.

Am I to suppose you do not believe that Christ talked to Moses?

Or how about Isaiah?

Again in Isaiah...

Jeremiah?

Would you feel the above represents an "evil prayer?" Or can we consider it righteous? If evil, should it be in our Bibles? Should we consider Jeremiah a prophet?

Did Jesus talk to Ezekiel?

Again in Ezekiel, who quotes Jesus Himself...

Or Paul?


"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I have expressly answered this before.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I don't recall you're ever saying that there was any difference. I recall you're making comments about the word "torture" not being used in the true view, but don't recall your having stated any actual difference between your view and the false view (excluding the time element). Is there any difference? If so, please either tell me what it is, or post a link to where you said what it was.

Thanks!

Tom,

As I said earlier, it's a question of motive. The act may be the same (or very similar), but the motive is NOT. The best way I can illustrate this is through the laws given through Moses.



Notice that it was commanded that a murderer be put to death. But the death required that the avenger be executing his purpose for the sake of the law, and not on account of a personal, spiteful, emotional response. In other words, if the avenger hated his enemy, he was a murderer.

God will never hate His enemies. He will execute the penalties for the sake of law and justice, and not because He is arbitrarily motivated against them by a spirit of hatred.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, do you not agree with the concept that Jesus Christ, in the flesh, came with the specific purpose of revealing the Father? And that this revelation full and complete?

You appear to be articulating, indirectly, the idea that Jesus Christ's revelation of the Father, while here in the flesh, was incomplete, and needs to be supplemented by other things. This correctly expresses your thought on this matter?

Thank you for answering my question again.

Regarding to the false view described by EGW and the view that you hold, you see no difference between the two with two exceptions:

1.The time element.
2.The motive which God has while He does the things described by Ellen White in the false view.

I think this second point is not a true difference, however, as I don't think any of those who hold the false view would view God's motive to be any different than yours. They would, along with you, say that God was simply recompensing the wicked for what they had done, and that He was righteous and just for so doing.

So we're back to just one difference, the time element.

Tom,

In order to misrepresent my views, you must necessarily misrepresent those of Mrs. White upon whom I have partly based my views along with help from the Bible itself, which is also undermined in your false interpretation of Mrs. White.

I have tried to answer this false view of yours previously, but I shall here make a more thorough response, and hope that it can, if nothing more, settle the issue in your mind of where I stand on it.

Because the quotes are not many, I will here quote every single statement in Mrs. White's published works which refers to the "all that man can know of God" philosophy which you have adopted. To save space, I will put these in a single quote box.




1) Ellen White includes the Bible as being part of the body of knowledge given to us which reveals the Father to us. "All that man needs to know and can know of God has been revealed in His Word and in the life of His Son, the great Teacher."

2) If you accept the quote in point #1 to be inspired, then you must necessarily expand your view to include the Bible as well. If the Bible is not to be included, then the quote in #1 becomes false, i.e. a lie.

3) There is not one single statement in all of those which indicates that the life of Jesus is the ONLY source of knowledge of God.

4) There is not one single statement in all of those which indicates that the life of Jesus alone is responsible for giving us the fullest possible revelation of God which we can comprehend.

5) Ellen White speaks of Christ, saying, "Christ is the wisdom of God. He is the great "I Am" to the world." The Bible says "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]." (John 1:18) This means, significantly, that Adam, Enoch (while on earth), Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and others who saw God, ate with Him, wrestled with Him, talked with Him--ALL saw Jesus. Was Jesus alive?

6) If Jesus was alive during the times of the old testament, and spoke with Moses from the burning bush, on the Mount, and to all the Israelites in a thunderous voice (He is, after all, the "Word," is He not?), how can you say this is NOT part of "Jesus' life?"

7) Mrs. White includes BOTH "Jesus' life" AND "Jesus' character" (in addition to the Bible) as being those things which reveal to us the Father. As we have discussed in other threads, Jesus' character, indeed, God's character, is revealed through the law. Can we then safely turn our eyes from the law, and say it does not reveal God to us?

8) One final blow: this is important!

If you hold rigidly to your view that Jesus' 4 BC - 31 AD lifetime on earth is the only relevant time portion in which the Father's character can have been revealed to man (i.e. "through the life and character of His Son"), then it follows that NO ONE BEFORE JESUS' TIME KNEW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT GOD.

Look carefully at the following quote:


If no man has ever seen God, nor was revealed anything about God until Jesus came in the flesh, then no one in Old Testament times could have possibly known God. All the altars of Israel would have necessarily been to the "unknown God!" This is because they could not possibly know about God until Jesus came.

I hope you will forgive my forcefulness in making the above statements. I make them so, because I feel very strongly about the effects of this misunderstanding being allowed to continue and perpetuated. It will eventually, if continued, erase the Old Testament, and write it off as irrelevant.


Tom,

Are you seeking to exasperate us by continually misrepresenting our view?

The false view of hell means God, who supposedly hates sin, perpetuates it for eternity! It means those who supposedly are saints, enjoy hearing the shrieks of the wicked mingled with their songs of praise! for eternity!

None of us here is in that camp. Those motives are foreign to us, just as they are to you.

If you do not see the clear distinction in motives presented by God Himself in His law of capital punishment as outlined in Numbers 35, perhaps re-reading it might help. If you still do not see a distinction, it is futile to continue this discussion, as you will be incapable of comprehending, and will continue to malign our view the way Satan maligns God's character. I am not saying, by the way, that my view is perfect. However, I am basing my view firmly upon Sacred Writ. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God."

Your strategy in interpreting these events appears to be to ignore a large portion of scripture, and claim that the only valid points in the discussion will come from your preferred passage (namely the Gospels). I do not feel such a strategy is faithful to the Bible.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It's not a view, but a question. One that can be answered "yes" or "no." If the answer is "no," you can simply explain what the difference is. There's no need for invective.



No, GC. This isn't reasoning correctly.

If I say "All that can be known about X was revealed by Y" this doesn't imply that nobody knew anything at all about X before Y revealed it. Isn't it clear to you that this reasoning is wrong?

Here's a specific example. Let's say there are 1,000 facts to know about some subject. Let's says that Y discovered all 1,000 of these things. Before Y came along, perhaps nothing was known, perhaps 999 things were known, or perhaps any number in between. Saying that "all that can be known about X was revealed by Y" doesn't tell you how much was known before Y's revelation, but simply that Y's revelation was complete. In other words, there's nothing that was known about X before Y came along that Y did not reveal.



That Jesus Christ, in the flesh, revealed all that man can know of God does not mean that nothing could be known of God before Christ came, but rather that there is nothing which can be known of God which He did not reveal when He came.



I think correct reasoning would be preferred. Also, since this is a dry medium, where one's body language can't be seen, nor tone of voice heard, statements are already forceful, by the nature of the medium, so there's no need to add force to them.



Not at all! The OT, and all Scripture, can only be properly understood if we know God, and the way to know God is through Jesus Christ. By believing Jesus Christ's revelation of God, the "whole purpose" of His earthly mission, we provide ourselves a firm foundation upon which we can study Scripture. But without a firm understand of God's character already in place, before we start our journey, we're doomed to make mistakes.



No. I'm trying to understand if your view is different than the false view represented in GC 536, other than the time element, and if so, how.



This is the time element, already accounted for.



MM, for one, has expressed a thought very close to this. For example:





I don't know that they are foreign to you, which is why I'm asking what the difference is between your view and the view represented in GC 536. By the way, do you disagree with the above that I've quoted? (my comment, and MM's response)



I've asking for the difference of your view and GC 536.



I've asking for the difference of your view and GC 536.



I think the approach being taken (i.e. methodology) is faulty, for reasons I've pointed out. It's not enough to base a view on Scripture. One needs to know God as He is revealed through Jesus Christ to be able to come to correct decisions in regards to the teachings of Scripture. To construct a correct theology requires a proper understanding of God's character, as fully revealed by Jesus Christ in the flesh. This was the whole purpose of His mission. Our study of God's character should being with Christ, and be centered in Him.



I've not said anything specifically about the Gospels. Nor have I suggested ignoring any portion of Scripture whatsoever. I've suggested that the whole purpose of Jesus Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, and I've suggested that all that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ in the flesh. I've also suggested that to form a correct theology, we need to start with a correct understanding of God's character, and that such an understanding is achieved by believing that which Jesus Christ in the flesh revealed of God.

Ok, back to my question regarding the view in GC 536. You see two differences between your view and that view.

1.The time element.
2.The rejoicing of the righteous.

In your view, the righteous will not be rejoicing as the wicked suffer.

Have I correctly represented your position here?

This is simply false.

Let me be clear: Jesus did NOT reveal all that man can know about the Father during 33 years of "life in the flesh." Nor does Ellen White say so.

Did not Jesus create the world? Did He not create all the different animals? Where did Jesus create any new forms of life during His 33 years on earth? In fact, the manner in which Jesus created the world shows me that God loves variety. Where do we see this in Jesus' life?

"All that man needs to know and can know of God has been revealed in His Word and in the life of His Son, the great Teacher." {6BC 1079.9}

I believe the above statement includes the conjunction "AND," referring to the entire history of God's interaction with mankind, while you seem to believe it refers only to Jesus' 33-year life. We differ.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, she does.



She even quoted the same Scripture I mentioned. Jesus Christ came for the purpose of revealing the Father. She says this was the "whole purpose" of His earthly mission. Here she says that all that man can know of God, or needs to know, was revealed in the life and teachings of His Son. She quotes John 1:18, which makes the same point, that Christ came to reveal the Father, and she goes on to say that Christ took our humanity, that He became flesh, and so forth. When she says that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, she's clearly speaking of when He became flesh.



Sure, this statement does include a conjunction. But the other one doesn't. For the other one to be true, it must be the case that all that one can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. It doesn't matter that another statement says that all that man can know of God was revealed by this and something else. Of course that's the case. It would have to be.

For example, let's say I wrote, "All that man needs to know of X was written by Y." Let's say I also write, "All that man needs to know of X was written by Y and Z." Can both of these statements be true? Of course. If the first one is true, the second one, of necessity, must be true.

GC, I wish to make clear the 8T 216 statement is not the only statement that makes this point. For example, this is from ST 1/20/90:



This brings out that the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission on earth was the revelation of God's character.

Here's another statement that discusses this theme:



This is again referencing John 1:18. The point is made that it was necessary for Christ to manifest God's character, to counteract the work that Satan had done. This work only one being could do. That she says this means this was a work that needed to be done!

By considering the above statements, we see not only that Christ did fully reveal God's character, but that it was necessary that He do so.

Tom,

I think you are being too dogmatic about this. God walked with Abraham, talked with Abraham, ate with Abraham, allowed Abraham to bargain with Him; and Abraham is called "the friend of God." If no man has seen God at any time, which I believe is true of the Father and of the full Divine glory (which Jesus veiled in Himself while on earth), it can only be that "God" in the story refers to Jesus. Do you agree?

Were not the Jews the children of Abraham? Or do you think the Jews were not children of Abraham?

The statements you just quoted about "Christ's whole purpose" do not indicate that it was also the sole time in which He was revealed to mankind. Was He not also the One who spoke with the patriarchs? Did He not reveal anything at all to them?

When you say "whole" and then mean "fraction" it doesn't add up.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom, yes, the unfallen and the redeemed will praise God for ending the GC the way it is described in the GC. And, no, I do not believe the radiant firelight of God's glory and presence is like the jets of light on Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Also, what effect do you think the presence of God will play in the agony the wicked experience at the end of time?

This is a bit vague. Let's consider the actual quote:



This was a couple of years ago. I think you may have altered your view some from when this was written. Is that right?



Ok. Previously you indicated you were favorable to this analogy. But if you say this doesn't reflect your view, I won't use it to describe it.



This if from "The Desire of Ages"



Also, from GC 542-543:



I think these quotes bring out the answer to your question, especially the second one.

Yes, I believe Christ led the Israelites in the wilderness.



What? Do I think the Jews were not the children of Abraham? Why would you ask this?



The fact that all that man can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ while here in the flesh does not imply God was never revealed at any other time. This is obviously faulty reasoning.

For example, let's say someone writes a book on the Apollo missions, which reveals all that can be known of them. This doesn't mean before the book was written there wasn't anything known of the Apollo missions.



This isn't relevant to the point, which is that Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, revealed all that can be known of God. This doesn't imply that things which can be known of God weren't revealed previously, or might be revealed afterward, but means that anything which was revealed previously (or might be revealed afterward) was revealed by Christ while here with us in the flesh. This is simply logic.



I didn't say it ("whole purpose"). I referred to it, which is why I put it in quotes. That the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God is taken from ST 1/20/90.

And was Christ alive?

A yes or no answer would be simple enough.

I'll speak to this issue once again in a soon-coming post.

Again, I'll address this one once again in a soon-coming post.

I have no issue with Christ's whole purpose during His "life in the flesh". I am taking an issue with the converse of this, which is to say it was NOT His purpose at any prior time. That is the fallacious logic I am objecting to.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

They praise the justice and judgment of God, which involves resurrected sinners suffering in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. What is not clear to me is why you think they are physically able to suffer emotional agony for millions of sins, one at a time, without dying after revisiting the first sin. This is crucial to an understanding of your view of the punishment of the wicked. So far you haven't explained what you believe about this particular aspect of judgment. It would be helpful if you did.


Why do you think the presence of God will cause the wicked to experience agony? How will it cause them to feel agony? And, what will be the end result of their agony? Do you think it is a comprehension of His character that will cause them to suffer and die?

What do you think the inevitable result of sin is? I got the impression you think it is emotional agony ending in death. But now I'm not so sure. Please explain your position clearly, that is, don't post a quote and expect me to know what you think it means. Your interpretation of quotes is often radically different than how I read it. State your view plainly in your own words.

For example, I believe the inevitable result of sin is capital punishment. God will inflict punishment according to their words and works. They will suffer mental and physical agony in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. They will die the moment they pay for their final sin. Please state your position as clearly as I have. Thank you.

Not in humanity, so no, not in the sense the statement "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son."



This is a rhetorical question. Just go ahead and make your point please.



They reveal that the whole purpose of His earthly mission, which is the same period of time that the other quote is speaking of, was the revelation of God.



Ok. I'll just reiterate the point, then, that the fact that all that we can know of God was revealed by Christ in His humanity does not imply that there are things man can know of God which were revealed in other places. However, it does mean that anything that was revealed elsewhere can be found in Christ's revelation while here in the flesh. This is sound reasoning.



Not in His humanity.



Not in His humanity.




But this fallacious logic was never set forth (at least by me). So why object to it?

I'll go ahead and respond to your questions, but you didn't answer my question. Does the quote I presented of our conversation accurately represent your current view? If it does, I'll keep presenting it. If not, please let me know, so I won't present it as a current view of yours.

It's not clear to me why you think I think this.



I don't believe your characterization here. I've written out what I believe.

M: Also, what effect do you think the presence of God will play in the agony the wicked experience at the end of time?

T: "His very presence is to them a consuming fire." "A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire."



Here is a passage which speaks to your questions:





I've cited the following many times:



The inevitable result of sin is death.



What I've said is that the inevitable result of sin is death.



Sin is based on the principle of selfishness, as opposed to the law of life for the universe, which is self-sacrificing love. It couldn't possibly lead to anything but death. It doesn't require God's setting people on fire to destroy them. The wicked will die as a result of their own choice.



I really don't see how DA 764 can be misunderstood. The only possible part I see that can be misunderstood is what "arbitrary" means. If one goes with the common idea of the word, without reading the context, one might misunderstand its meaning, but I don't see any room for misunderstanding in the rest of the passage.



I'm not seeing where there would be room for misunderstanding here. For example, "but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin." This means that death comes as the inevitable result of sin, but had God left Satan to reap the full result of his sin right away, this wouldn't have been apparently to the onlooking angels.

Let me try expressing things another way. Given the principle upon which sin is founded, How could sin NOT lead to death?



This certainly can't be true. Just plug in "capital punishment" in for "reap the full result of their sin" and you can see it doesn't make sense.



This doesn't make any sense. For the quote to make sense, sin has to result in a death that can be misinterpreted as something else. God's killing someone would be understood for exactly what it is.



The wicked receive the results of their own choice. It's not something arbitrarily inflicted by God.



This is true! This is because sin causes suffering; the more sin, the more suffering.



You talk as if this were some sort of transaction. Do this wrong, and this is equivalent to X units of pain. Do this thing, and it's equivalent to Y. So God inflicts X units of pain if you do the first thing, Y units for the second, and so forth. This idea of God must be very harmful to one's own psyche.

Some people can't feel physical pain. Do you think God will supernaturally cure them, so they can feel physical pain, to "pay" for their sin? Where did you ever get the idea that sin is something that can be paid for by pain? That sounds utterly pagan. Where is there anything in Scripture which suggests such a thing? There is much in Scripture which speaks of sin *causing* pain, but nothing suggesting that one "pays" for sin by having pain inflicted on one's person.



I believe that sin ruins one's character, to the extent that merely being in God's presence is unpleasant (like a consuming fire). We see some explanation of this by even righteous beings in Scripture (e.g. Isaiah "I was undone"; Daniel/John "I fell as a dead man"), so it's not surprising that an unrighteous person couldn't stand it. The revelation of God's character of necessity makes clear our own. Without the bathing grace of Christ, this is impossible for us to bear. If we had to bear the burden of our own guilt, it would crush us. Those who reject Christ choose to do this very thing, and are not able to bear it.

Tom,

I <had> some material ready to post (my "soon-coming post") but the power went out, and I lost it all...so it may not be so soon-coming as I had planned.

Regarding the "rhetorical question," let's make it a real question, shall we?

Were the Jews the children of Abraham?

There's a real reason that I ask this question, so it was not intended to be rhetorical.


So you mean to say that "the life and character" of Jesus lasted only 33 years? He was not "alive" before this?



You have made the point very clear here that you only believe Mrs. White was referring to Jesus' life in the flesh. However, do you have some statement to that effect? Where does she say this?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ok, if it's a real question, what specifically are you asking? Are you asking if the Jews were physical descendants of Abraham? Or are you asking in a spiritual sense? (as in how Jesus spoke when He said God could make children of Abraham from the rocks). Or do you have some other meaning in mind?



I said, "When she says that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, she's clearly speaking of when He became flesh." I quoted the following:



making the part bold I was emphasizing. Jesus Christ, in His humanity, while here in the flesh, revealed all that man needs to know, or can know, of God.



You didn't respond to my question. Why are you objecting to logic that was never set forth?

The statement speaks for itself. Jesus Christ revealed all that man needs to know, or can know, of God. She quotes John 1:18, and speaks of Jesus Christ's taking humanity upon Him, becoming flesh, even as we are.

The question you're asking here isn't very precise. I haven't said "I only believe Mrs. White was referring to Jesus' life in the flesh" but that the context of the statement which I cited is Jesus Christ in His humanity. In other words, I didn't say Ellen White said that Jesus Christ only revealed God while in His humanity, but that she said that Jesus Christ, in His humanity, revealed all that man needs to know, or can know, of God.

Tom,

I'm glad you see a distinction here. That is partly what I am getting at. Shall we subdivide the question?

1) Were the Jews of Jesus' time physical children of Abraham (i.e. descendants of Abraham)?
2) Were the Jews of Jesus' time spiritual children of Abraham (and let's clarify this as referring to the time of Jesus' ministry, prior to the cross)?


I see the quote you've posted, but how can you be sure the first sentence there and a sentence in a later paragraph are directly corollary?

(I can give a multitude of examples where things appear on the same page or within a few paragraphs of each other that look related but can be demonstrated otherwise.)

Is there any statement where she specifies that all we can know of God was revealed by Jesus while in the flesh?

The statement which you have quoted does not specify this. It can easily be read to say that by taking humanity, Jesus revealed a part of God which could not be revealed in any other way. It does not, however, exclude the possibility of Jesus having revealed aspects of God prior to, or following His incarnation on earth. The very fact that John 1:18 is quoted, beginning with "No man hath seen God at any time," indicates that Mrs. White is addressing times beyond that of Jesus' earthly ministry, and inclusive of it. To then transition into speaking of that earthly ministry would be quite natural, and appropriately, as the focus shifts, a new paragraph is started.

Your objection to my objection of certain logic here seems to be a result of misunderstanding my statement. If you say that you have never made the claim which I was objecting to, then this discussion will soon end as you and I will find ourselves in agreement.

To restate it, in hopefully better terms, the logic is this (pardon my summarizing here):

1) Mrs. White says that the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God.

2) Tom says that no aspect of God was revealed prior to this mission that was not also revealed during this mission, and that much had never yet been revealed.

3) I say that Christ's whole purpose, even before His "mission" (meaning His earthly ministry) has been the revelation of God. Jesus may or may not have re-revealed every point previously revealed about God. (And I say He did not accomplish such, but recommended the Scriptures to His hearers for "further study." See John 5:39.)

I further see the fact that the converse of "the whole purpose of [Christ's] mission," i.e. either this was not His purpose before (new purpose) or else He had different purposes before (purpose changed), cannot be true.



This purpose has not changed. His "whole purpose" was to "set men right." Additionally, I believe He has always sought to do so "through the revelation of God."

Was God not revealed at Sinai? When did Jesus ever thunder down the Ten Commandments during His earthly ministry? Does that mean that since He did not do this, it could not have been in character for God to do so at Sinai? If so, then who proclaimed the law at Sinai, if not God?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

When you speak of Jews, are you speaking physically or spiritually? If the former, than most were children of Abraham (i.e. descendants) although some were not (being converts or children of converts). Some of these were also spiritual children of Abraham. If you're speaking spiritually, then all of these were children of Abraham in the spiritual sense, and some were also physical children, and some not.



The section heading is "Christ's Revelation of God". Her topic sentence is "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." She then quotes John 1:18, where John was making the point that Christ became flesh in order to reveal the father (this is John's context) and goes no to make the same point that John did, that Christ became flesh to reveal God. It's clear to see that when she says that Christ revealed all that man needs to know of God, or can know of God, she is referring to His humanity. She doesn't speak of anything other than His humanity.



Of course Christ revealed aspects of God prior to and following His incarnation, but her point is that all that man needs to know of God, or can know of Him, were revealed by Christ in His humanity.



John's point is that no one had seen God, and so Christ came, to make God known, to make Him visible, familiar. Ellen White makes the same point in ST 1/20/90:



This is the same theme as John, and the same theme as her message in 8T.



She says that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, and she starts talking about that. There's a topic sentence, which introduces her topic, and then amplification of that.

Are you looking at a book, or online? (in regards to 8T 216)



I said that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ in His humanity. This does not imply there aren't things about God which could be known before or after this, but that anything which can be known of God was revealed by Jesus Christ in His humanity. I've repeated this a number of times. This seems very clear to me. Is there something unclear here?



Right.



I said this follows from EGW's statement that, in His humanity, Christ revealed all that man needs to know, or can know, of God.



I agree with this. This has always been Christ's mission, and is the focus of the Great Controversy. Since the accusations against God's character began, one could rightly say this has been His "whole purpose." However, there were things about God we could not know without His becoming flesh, so He became flesh so that we could know everything we needed to know, or could know, of God.



If He, in His humanity, revealed everything man can know of God, then this must include everything, whether previously revealed or not.



That says that the Scriptures testify of Him, but they wouldn't come to Him to receive life, which has been my point. Eternal life is to know God. Christ is the way to God. He revealed God.

There's a nice Ty Gibson quote on this. Maybe I'll look that up later.



If you're saying He had the same purpose before and after His incarnation, I agree.



Agreed. But before coming in the flesh, He was limited in how effectively He could do so.



Have you read Waggoner's "The Everlasting Covenant"? He speaks of how Christ was revealed at Sinai. It's online. Perhaps I'll quote from that too.

I think most people misunderstand the revelation of God from Sinai. Certainly if we think the revelation at Sinai presented a different revelation of God than Christ's revelation while in the flesh, we're misunderstanding it.

You described the final experience of the wicked this way:
Did Jesus, in His humanity, ever "reveal reality to the wicked" in a way that "cause[d] them suffering" such as what you describe? Since you are saying this is what God will do, can you cite an example when Jesus did this in His humanity?

Tom,

I agree with that assessment. Well said! Now, we both believe these points because they fit our logical minds given the historical information we have, right?

Guess what?...this may throw us for a loop....

If I wish to be dogmatic, I can say that since Mrs. White said "Jesus denied that the Jews were children of Abraham," then that means that the Jews are not descendants of Abraham. Or, I could apply this in the spiritual sense and say that none of the Jews were children of God! Either way is a misinterpretation of Mrs. White's words, don't you think?

Mrs. White speaks of the Jews being children of Abraham. She speaks of Jesus, who was a Jew, being a descendant of Abraham.


The point I am making here, Tom, is that even though in one paragraph Mrs. White says something very emphatic about Jesus' portrayal of the Jews' not being "children of Abraham," the emphasis notwithstanding, Ellen White's statements in other places provide us with necessary balance to catch the context of these words.

The same is true of Mrs. White's statement regarding "all that man can know." There are balancing statements which must not be ignored. There is no need to put blinders on and say "B-b-but here it says 'all' and she relates it to Jesus' earthly ministry ONLY." The fact is, she had no such intention, any more than Mrs. White intended to deny the Jewish heritage. She was speaking to a particular issue, making a singular point, which was not to be broadly applied to every other topic.

One must "rightly divide the word of truth." Common sense can help--but proper use of balancing statements and context is quintessential.

To me, the "Holy Bible" consists of 66 books. How many books are in your Bible? Do not they all reveal God to us? Can any of the books be said to NOT reveal God to us?

Mrs. White's balancing statements to the one you like so well are these:

The Bible and Jesus' life receive equal mention here. Significantly, the Bible is the first to be mentioned in this statement. The statement includes the entire Scriptures, with special emphasis on the Living Word (Jesus).
All that is necessary to know for salvation does not necessarily mean all that is possible to know.

The more we know, the more capacity we have to know. Moreover, God "delights" to give us "Much more."

Jesus told His disciples rather plainly here that they would learn MORE, when the Spirit of Truth was come to them...which in other places He stated would happen AFTER His ascension.

The context is important. And it is clear. God wants to teach us more, much more. Ellen White is one such source. Ellen White's truths have not come to us "from the earthly ministry of Jesus," but from her personal visions of Heaven and communion with God and the angels. Has she revealed things that Christ did not share? She most certainly has. If she has not, and if truly no prophet can teach us anything more since we have already learned "all" that it is possible to know about God from Christ's earthly ministry, then I guess we need not believe in the prophetic gift any longer. The gift would have perished at Christ's ascension--or at least, no new truths would be uncovered afterwards.

I hope you understand why I cannot accept such a view as you hold about "all" revelation of God coming packaged in 33 years' time.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

First of all, the point isn't that Christ did everything that God has done, or will do, but that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Christ in His humanity. This is what was second.

Secondly, in response to your question here, the cleansing of the temple comes immediately to mind. It seems to speak of similar principles, the wicked becoming aware of their sins because of a look of Christ, divinity flashing through humanity, their not being able to abide His presence because only the pure of heart could, etc.

GC, I hold the view that all that man can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ because of Ellen White. I learned it from her, but I know of others who have echoed it. Here's one place:(The following are excerpts from "Is God to Blame" by Greg Boyd)



It's rather interesting here that the author (not an SDA!) uses almost the same language as Ellen White did:



I believe the reason this writer was able to express this truth so articulately, and so similarly to Ellen White, is that it comes straight from Scripture.

Here's another author, this time an SDA, presenting similar thoughts:

How do you know God is going to do what you say He is going to do? When Jesus cleansed the temple, nobody experienced mental anguish to the point of eternal death, as you say will happen at the end. They ran away, but they came back, with their hearts still as impure as before. If the cleansing of the temple is your prototype, there will be no eternal death caused by mental anguish - they will just run away, then return after a while.

How did you find out that God will do what you say He will, when Jesus never did that in His life? In your example, He just revealed enough reality to make the bad guys run away for a little bit, but not eternal death, not even the first death.

Do you have another example that can better support your thesis?

I think we all hold that view. The difference is that you believe the time frame for the "revealed by Jesus Christ" is limited to the 33 years He spent walking in sandals, while there are those of us who believe He has been revealing God for thousands of years.

That would be applying EGW's words more vehemently than EGW intended, making her contradict inspiration. That would be a bad thing.

That's precisely my point, Arnold.

The same thing is happening here with a statement that "all that man can know."

I can easily counter that statement with one fell swoop, if I should stoop to the same level of "interpretation." Look here:



Shall I say that Jesus revealed nothing new?!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is interesting. This goes along with this idea:



The object Christ had in view was the revelation of His Father, that men might be set right and kept right with God.

Even if it were true that Christ revealed nothing new, it would still be the case that all that man can know was revealed in the life and character of His Son in the flesh.

What is it you think I'm saying God will do?

This whole discussion seems rather moot.



When I read from the SOP that all that man can know of God was revealed by His Son, it changed my life. I realized that I had given lip service to the concept that God is like His Son Jesus Christ, that I didn't really seem them as the same, that in my mind were unconscious differences which my conscious mind had not recognized.

I believe the statement (that all that man can know or needs to know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son) as it reads. The context is clearly speaking of Christ's humanity. If one wishes to doubt the statement, there's always some other way to interpret a statement like this.

Again, as I stated above, "the point isn't that Christ did everything that God has done, or will do, but that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Christ in His humanity."

I see in "The Desire of Ages" pages 107, 108, the answer to the question that was asked in regards to the death of the wicked. I see a similar principle in play in the cleansing of the temple.

Again, I see evidence that the SOP statement is true, an one would ordinarily read such a statement, but I don't see the point in trying to prove it.

This is fairly representing the difference. Here's the statement:



There's no doubt this is speaking of Christ's humanity. Anyone can see that.

Where we differ is that I believe that Christ, in His humanity, revealed all that man needs to know, or can know, of God, and you don't.

Tom,

If you choose to believe that "all that man can know" was revealed by Jesus, AND that "He did not make new revelations to men," then it necessarily follows that "all that man can know" is contained in the Old Testament scriptures.

This is why I do not think it is quite fair of you to sidestep the Old Testament stories and keep saying we should be focused on Christ's life instead. It appears that Christ Himself cast the focus behind, to what had already been revealed.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I allow for the possibility that Jesus revealed things about God in His pre-incarnate days that He did not replicate during His 33 years here. You don't allow for that. Right?

But there is something else that differentiates our views. Even if Jesus did reveal everything we can know about God during His 33 years here, I allow for the possibility that I might not know about everything that He did during His 33 years here. And more importantly, I might not understand everything that He did during His 33 years here. Therefore, I consider the 4,000 years of inspired revelation that He gave about Himself before His incarnation as a valuable resource in understanding what He did during His incarnation.

In contrast, you seem willing to discount clear passages of Scripture and SOP that seem to contradict your understanding of what He did during His 33 years here. I do not trust my understanding that much; I would rather trust a "Thus saith the Lord," even if He didn't say it while wearing sandals.

That is a sound argument.

No, I do not believe what you posted. I believe God will rain down fire from above and raise up fire from below. The wicked will suffer in this environment.


Nothing you have written so far (please repost it if I’ve missed it) explains why you think the wicked are physically able to suffer emotional agony for millions of sins, one at a time, without dying after revisiting the first sin. Also, which aspects of this statement do you disagree with and why?


Reposting the same quote wasn’t helpful, Tom. I understand the who (God) and the what (the consuming fire of His glory and presence); what I don’t understand is the how and the why. That is, why do you think His presence will cause the wicked to suffer? And, how does His presence cause them to suffer?

Do you think it is a comprehension of His character that will cause them to suffer and die? If so, how and why?


I’m talking about the suffering that precedes death. As you know, death is the end of the results of sin. It is relief from the results of sin.


Do you think the wicked will experience emotional anguish as they revisit each sin during judgment? If so, why do you think they are capable of experiencing emotional anguish as they revisit each sin? Also, do you think they will eventually die of emotional anguish? If so, why do you think they are physically able to survive revisiting their first few sins? Why do you think they are able to endure revisiting millions of sins without dying? Do you think God does something supernatural to keep them alive? If not, why are they able to endure such unimaginable emotional agony without dying prematurely (before they revisit all their sins)?


That sin doesn’t cause sinners to die is evident from the fact evil angels have been alive for more than 6,000 years in a sinful state. Also, humans live for many years in a sinful state without dying. Instead, they die of disease or destruction.

Why do you think evil men and angels have been able to live so long without dying? What do you think is the source of their life and their longevity? And, what do you think will change at the end when they finally die? What do you think will cause them to die? If you think sin will cause them to die, please explain why it hasn’t killed them yet. What do you think sin is waiting for? Why hasn’t it killed them yet?


Tom, you are acting as if this quote is the only place it is talked about in the SOP. Consider this one:

“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. . . . 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 become hardened in sin. . . . 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. But while inflicting judgment, God remembered mercy. {CC 155}


Why do you think the SOP employs the word “inflict” to describe the judgment of the wicked? For example: “God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. Who will say God will not do what He says He will do? {LDE 241.3}

“God had declared that if at that time they refused to hear His voice, He would inflict upon them fearful retribution. They did refuse to hear, and He pronounced His final judgments upon Judah, and He would visit with special wrath the man who had proudly lifted himself up against the Almighty. {PK 435.3} The lightest punishment that a merciful God could inflict upon so rebellious a people was submission to the rule of Babylon, but if they warred against this decree of servitude they were to feel the full vigor of His chastisement. {PK 443.2}

“The Lord commanded Jeremiah to stand in the court of the Lord's house and speak unto all the people of Judah who came there to worship, those things which He would give him to speak, diminishing not a word, that they might hearken and turn from their evil ways. Then God would repent of the punishment which He had purposed to inflict upon them because of their wickedness. {4T 165.2}


Again, why doesn’t sin cause sinners to suffer in this way now?


Again, why do you think sin doesn’t cause sinners to suffer and die now? Also, please consider the following: “Christ died because there was no other hope for the transgressor. He might try to keep God's law in the future; but the debt which he had incurred in the past remained, and the law must condemn him to death. Christ came to pay that debt for the sinner which it was impossible for him to pay for himself. Thus, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, sinful man was granted another trial. {FW 30.1}

“We were all debtors to divine justice, but we had nothing with which to pay the debt. Then the Son of God, who pitied us, paid the price of our redemption. {CC 267.5} “He had come to take man's place, to pledge Himself in man's behalf, to pay the debt that sinners owed. {LHU 75.3} “By dying in our behalf, He gave an equivalent for our debt. Thus He removed from God all charge of lessening the guilt of sin. By virtue of My oneness with the Father, He says, My suffering and death enable Me to pay the penalty of sin. By My death a restraint is removed from His love. His grace can act with unbounded efficiency. {TMK 69.3}


1. Why do you think the grace of Christ prevents sinners from suffering and dying the moment they sin?
2. Do you think the grace of Christ prevents evil angels from suffering and dying? If not, what do you think prevents them from suffering and dying the moment they sin?
3. Why do you think the wicked are capable of comprehending the character of God in a way that causes them to suffer and die?
4. Why do you think Jesus’ character didn’t cause sinners to suffer and die while He was here in the flesh?
5. Do you think sinners would suffer and die without the presence of God? If so, how and why?

Ellen White wrote:

The principles of God's government and the plan of redemption must be clearly defined. The lessons of the Old Testament must be fully set before men. {DA 34.1}

In every page, whether history, or precept, or prophecy, the Old Testament Scriptures are irradiated with the glory of the Son of God. So far as it was of divine institution, the entire system of Judaism was a compacted prophecy of the gospel. To Christ "give all the prophets witness." Acts 10:43. From the promise given to Adam, down through the patriarchal line and the legal economy, heaven's glorious light made plain the footsteps of the Redeemer. Seers beheld the Star of Bethlehem, the Shiloh to come, as future things swept before them in mysterious procession. In every sacrifice Christ's death was shown. In every cloud of incense His righteousness ascended. By every jubilee trumpet His name was sounded. In the awful mystery of the holy of holies His glory dwelt. {DA 211.5}

The Old Testament Scriptures stated plainly every detail of Christ's ministry, and again and again He quoted from the prophets, and declared, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." If they had honestly searched the Scriptures, bringing their theories to the test of God's word, Jesus need not have wept over their impenitence. He need not have declared, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Luke 13:35. {DA 241.4}

He spoke the word of God, as He had spoken through all the prophets and teachers of the Old Testament. The whole Bible is a manifestation of Christ, and the Saviour desired to fix the faith of His followers on the word. When His visible presence should be withdrawn, the word must be their source of power. Like their Master, they were to live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matt. 4:4. {DA 390.3}

In teaching these disciples, Jesus showed the importance of the Old Testament as a witness to His mission. Many professed Christians now discard the Old Testament, claiming that it is no longer of any use. But such is not Christ's teaching. So highly did He value it that at one time He said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31. {DA 799.1}

It is the voice of Christ that speaks through patriarchs and prophets, from the days of Adam even to the closing scenes of time. The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New. It is the light from the prophetic past that brings out the life of Christ and the teachings of the New Testament with clearness and beauty. The miracles of Christ are a proof of His divinity; but a stronger proof that He is the world's Redeemer is found in comparing the prophecies of the Old Testament with the history of the New. {DA 799.2}

I anticipated this argument in saying:



Also, if you look at EGW's statement, she points out that while the truths were present in the OT, they had been obscured. DA 22 brings out that the earth was dark with misunderstanding regarding God's character, and Christ came to lighten the gloomy shadows that had been case.

I find the resistance to the idea that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Son while in His humanity to be a bit perplexing. Realizing this truth was a life-changing experience for me.

Here's what I posted:



So when you say you disagree with this, you're disagreeing with yourself, right? That is, the "correct" should be "incorrect." So you no longer agree with what you thought a couple of years ago? This is what I'm trying to clarify.

Why should they die after revisiting the first sin?



For the reasons pointed out here:



Hopefully this isn't the same passage. The revelation of the beauty of God's character simultaneously reveals the ugliness of their own. You mentioned knowing Ty Gibson. Do you have his book, "See With New Eyes"? He explains the concept in detail there. If you have the book, I can tell you the page numbers.



Certainly it will cause them to suffer. In the DA 108 passage I cited, it says it "slays" the wicked, so it seems to be involved in their death as well, although I'd say it's not so much the comprehension of God's character, but their own, although seeing God's character is what brings to light their own. Again, I'd refer you to Ty Gibson's book, if you have it.



I didn't understand this. The inevitable result of sin is death is what I was trying to say. Or, to put it another way, sin results in death. (like smoking can result in cancer, for example).



According to the SOP, the only reason man didn't die right away is because God intervened, so this argument doesn't work. If God intervened to prevent man's death, He could have intervened to prevent Satan's death, and the death of His followers. DA 764 explains that God did this very thing, and explains why. Two reasons are given. One is that had God allowed Satan to die, his death would have been misunderstood as something God had caused to happen, as opposed to being the inevitable result of sin. The second reason is that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles of his government.

Regarding why sin doesn't cause sinners to suffer in the way they will suffering the final judgment, they are not being judged now. In the judgment, Jesus Christ is revealed to each unrighteous person. The events of His life, the bearing that has on each one, their own lives, where they stepped away from truth, etc., will all be revealed.



"God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles." (DA 764) If people died when they first sinned, they wouldn't have time to develop character.



Clearly something does, as DA 764 explains. Probably "grace" is not the best thing to call it.



God does. I pointed out two reasons why above.



Because they were created in the image of God. Remember that some are not resurrected, so not all are capable.



They were able to leave His presence.



I'm not sure what you mean by the presence of God. Without God everyone would die, whether sinners or not. Why? Because God is life, and all life comes from Him.

Clearly we disagree on this point. I believe this is true, and you don't.



No, this is wrong, which I've explained several dozen times in this thread. That Jesus Christ did reveal all that, by man, can be known of God in the flesh does not mean that He did not reveal things about God either before or after this period of time. I don't understand why there is such difficulty in grasping this point.



You can know what was revealed, which is what the quote is talking about.



This is a better point. It's true, you might misunderstand something Jesus Christ revealed in the flesh. And so you could go to some other revelation of the same point to some other source to try to understand what Jesus Christ revealed.

Ty Gibson wrote:



I believe the revelation of Jesus Christ while in His humanity is the clearest revelation of God, by far. In the OT, God was constrained by the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites. Much of what happened was not God's ideal will, so you have to strip away that which God did because that's what He would have wanted to do anyway, because that's the way He is, from what He did because He was constrained by circumstances. That's a much more difficult process than simply drinking from the living fountain which is Jesus Christ.



I think this is much more likely to confuse than enlighten, and think it has. I think considering Christ afresh would be helpful.



The SOP tells us that Christ came to lighten the world of the misunderstandings of God's character. He is the word of God, God's thought made audible. I find the following (I'll post in a separate post, because it's a bit long) to be in harmony with the points Ellen White makes.

The whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God. It would be good for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating on the life of Christ, especially the latter scenes.

This is the foundation of all sin: the lie that God is untrustworthy, the lie that God is not altogether loving and that He doesn't have our best interests in mind. Adam and Eve came under the grip of this deceptive picture of God. At that moment they stopped trusting God as their source of life. Consequently, they saw themselves as deficient...

A faulty picture of God led to an ungodly evaluation that in turn brought about a rebellious action...The lie created an emptiness as well as the futile and rebellious means of filling it. A false concept of God, and therefore of herself, gave birth to sinful behavior, which in turn brought about spiritual and physical death (see Jas 1:14-16)...

Just as the foundation of all that separates us from God is a false picture of God, so too the foundation of all that restores our innocent communication iwth God is a true picture of God. So everything hangs on the question, Where do we find the true picture of God? The answer that the Bible unequivocally and emphatically gives is Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the truth that dispels the serpent's lie...

When God thinks, John is saying, it is Jesus. And when God expresses Himself, it is Jesus...wherever and whenever God thinks and expresses Himself, it is Jesus Christ.

Moreover, it has been this way throughout eternity...

This means that in knowing, we are not knowing someone "one step removed" from God. in knowing Jesus we are knowing God Himself, God in His eternal essence. In seeing Jesus, we are seeing the very heart of God...

Whereas the enemy covered up the true God in a veil of deceptive darkness that brought death, Jesus turns the light on so we can see who God really is. In doing this, Jesus gives life...

Only the revelation of God in Christ completely dispels all forms of the lie we have been deceived into believing. When our picture of God is built on any foundation other than Jesus Christ...we will be vulnerable to believing a lie about God... We will embrace a god that is consistent with our jaded presuppositions and fallible expectations, which keep us in bondage to the serpent's lie. Our understanding of God, ourselves, suffering and every other aspect of creation will be to some extent corrupted...

Idolatry takes place when we don't allow God to define Himself for us in Christ but rather embrace a picture of God on the basis of our life experiences, philosophical speculations or non-Christ-centered interpretations of Scripture...

All we can and need to know about God is found in Christ, for God fully dwells in and is revealed in Christ...

Christ was not an innocent third party who was punished against His will to apease the Father's wrath...Hence His sacrifice does not appease God's wrath; it reveals God's love.... In the crucified Christ the truth about God, about us and about the world is most perfectly revealed. For the cross is where reconciliation between God and the world is accomplished...

Under the impact of the primordial deception, the "natural mind" does not expect the omnipotent Creator to like like this...

The most fundamental distinguishing characteristic of every false picture of God is that it qualifies and compromises the truth about God's love. The most fundamental distinguishing characteristic of the true God is that the love He is and the love He gives is unsurpassable. A greater love simply cannot be conceived.

The love that God eternally is, is manifested in the love that God gives. And the love God gives is displayed most perfectly on the cross. (Is God be Blame? by Greg Boyd)

Tom,

You haven't answered Arnold's question in the thread "The Great Contoversy" and, as I'm also interested in knowing your position about this, I'm reposting it here:

see following post.

As I recall, I posted the following:



So on the basis of my quoting this, Arnold asked me if I believe that Satan still does not know he is wrong.

I suppose that depends upon whether one thinks Satan's denial of the existence is real or not, or just a pretense. From my reading of Ed. 154, it sounded to me like EGW was conveying the thought that Satan is serious.

I should add that the question, as Arnold posed it, assumes quite a bit. It assumes that Satan did not know he was wrong, and continues not knowing he was wrong. It's possible that Satan was at one time convinced he was wrong, and then later came to believe his own lies. The SOP says quite a bit about this (being careful with what we say, as it impacts us, and we may come to defend or believe what we said, even if we didn't really mean it when we said it).

Tom, I'm glad it changed your life. It is not my intention to take that away from you. All I'm saying is that Jesus revealed what we need to know about God through His actions and teachings. At one point it seemed we were agreement. Now it seems like we are at odds.

Your clarification is correct. More importantly, though, is what I do believe - "I believe God will rain down fire from above and raise up fire from below. The wicked will suffer in this environment." In addition to this, the radiant firelight of God's glorious presence will contribute to their suffering and death.

If , as you say, the inevitable of sin is death, why wouldn’t it cause them to die? “Also, which aspects of this statement do you disagree with and why?” (reposted from above)


It sounds like you’re saying comprehending the contrast between their character and God’s is what will cause the wicked to suffer and die. Is this what you think “The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked” means? If so, then it sounds like you believe information or knowledge, not sin, is what will cause the wicked to suffer and die. If so, how does this differ from saying, “The inevitable result of sin is emotional anguish ending in death”?


Please refer me to inspired sources (i.e. the Bible or the SOP). Why do you think the wicked are capable of comprehending God’s character? And, why do you think the contrast between their character and His will cause them to suffer and die?


Yes, sinners will die. But what do you think will cause the wicked to suffer? Again, death is a blessing. It is the end of suffering.


Yes, God does something to do prevent sinners from dying. I believe He veils the radiant firelight of His glorious presence. What do you think He does?


You didn’t answer my question. What is it about grace that prevents sinners from suffering and dying the moment they sin?


I believe the reason evil angels do not suffer and die when they sin is because God chooses not to destroy them. What do you believe? Do you believe sin chooses not to destroy them? If not, what do you believe?


How does God prevent them from suffering and dying every time they sin?


This answer implies the reason they do not die when they sin is because they do not comprehend the character of God. If so, what changes when they are resurrected? Why are they all of sudden able to comprehend His character in a way that causes them to suffer and die?


So, are you implying the presence of God is necessary for the wicked to suffer and die? If so, isn’t that a bit arbitrary, to use your logic?


I’m referring to His physical presence, as in close proximity (as opposed to standing afar off). Again, I believe the “the terrible light of His presence”, the radiant firelight of His glorious countenance is what will cause the wicked to suffer and die. What do you believe? Here’s what Ellen White wrote about the radiant light of God and its effect on others:

Maybe. However, at the time he rejected the law, or rebelled, he was fully convinced that he was in the wrong, and that God was righteous and His law was just. Besides, Ellen White says that "to him as to no other created being was given a revelation of God's love. Understanding the character of God, knowing His goodness, Satan chose to follow his own selfish, independent will." So his sin of rebellion in no way can be described under the category of sins which Boyd describes here:



In view of Boyd's use of the word all, I can't agree with this statement.

The context of Boyd's remark is the foundation of all human sin, pointing back to the origin of that sin, which was in Eden.

MM, I started writing out a long response to #120094, but find I cannot do so. You're asking questions with embedded false assumptions that I have to disentangle, and questions like this one:



Do I believe sin chooses not to destroy them? How can you ask a question like this? Sin is not a sentient being. What are you thinking when you ask a question like this? This question doesn't make sense.

Do you have Ty Gibson's book? If you do, I'll refer you to the pages numbers I had in mind. If not, I'll type them out for you. I know you don't care for anything which is not the SOP, but you've asked me what I think, and Ty eloquently expresses what I think, better than I could, so if you're interested in what I think, I'll quote him for you. I think expressing this should pretty much take care of the rest of your questions as well.

Is his idea of the Great Controversy restricted to earth?

Tom, Ty doesn't address my questions, which are - Do you think the inevitable result of sin during judgment, as each sin is revisited, involves comprehending the contrast between our character and God's causing compounding mental and physical suffering eventually ending in death? If so, do you think the physical presence of God is necessary for it to play out this way? Also, do you think literal fire will be present at the time? If so, what effect will it have on the wicked before they die?

PS - I do not currently possess Ty's books.

Alcohol is not a sentient being, but it destroys people all by itself sometimes, no?

But then, you must realize why Mike would ask the question as he did, considering some of your statements.

Here's a few of them:


So, it is clear that you believe God will NOT cause the wicked to suffer, and that sin WILL. "Sin," in your belief, also has some ability to cause the wicked to suffer various durations of time. It seems that only a sentient being would be capable of such time-based judgments.

It appears, Tom, that you are positing here that while God is kindly looking on, sin will kill the sinners based on how errant they were. You have said that God will not set them on fire, as this is not kind. You also said sin will not set them on fire...so it appears you believe in a fire-less hell, else where does fire enter this picture at all?

Yet, the most recent statements emanating from your keyboard indicate a transition. It now appears that you are adopting the view that God's glory (light) will cause the death of the wicked. Is this true?



If this is true, how do you reconcile the duality of "sin" and "God's glory" causing their death? I am certain you do not view God's glory as being "sin."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That you would ask such a question makes it clear you either didn't read what I had posted or didn't understand it, which makes me question the judgments you have made regarding what he wrote.

For your convenience, I'm posting something he wrote regarding what he calls "The Warfare Worldview"

What is the Warfare Worldview?

The warfare worldview is based on the conviction that our world is engaged in a cosmic war between a myriad of agents, both human and angelic, that have aligned themselves with either God or Satan. We believe this worldview best reflects the response to evil depicted throughout the Bible. For example, Jesus unequivocally opposed evils such as disease, demonization, and even natural disaster (i.e. Jesus rebuked the storm) as originating in the wills of Satan, fallen angels, and sinful people, rather than of God.

This view is not ontologically dualistic, because while the Bible clearly articulates war between good and evil, it also clearly articulates God’s sovereignty. The battle that is currently raging is not everlasting, and when it ends, we are assured of God’s victory. In fact, the victory has already been won in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (Col. 2:13–14), but the demise of evil has not yet been fully realized. Christians are called to wage spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10–17) against evil through prayer, evangelism, and social action.

While most of the apostolic fathers held views that were similar to the warfare worldview, the view which has been prevalent in western church tradition since the 4th century teaches that everything that ever happens, whether good or evil, does so according to God’s will. Thus, the western church has wrestled with the “Problem of Evil” throughout most of its history—and rightly so. The warfare worldview, however, makes sense out of evil, human freedom, the power and urgency of prayer, evangelism, and social action.

Instead of resigning ourselves to our circumstances when we encounter evil, the warfare worldview encourages Christians to revolt against evil as evidence of Satan’s activity, rather than God’s mysterious will. Satan, fallen angels, and sinful people have wills of their own, and they are responsible for everything that happens which is not consistent with the character of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.

Questioning the Blueprint Worldview
The Bible uniformly teaches that God is the Creator of everything and the sovereign Lord of history (e.g. Gen. 1:1; John 1:3; Col. 1:16–17; Deut. 10:14; Dan. 10:34–35; Ps. 135:6ff; Acts 17:24–27; Eph. 1:11). At times he exercises unilateral control over what transpires in history, miraculously intervening to alter the course of nations or of individuals, and even predestining some events long before they come to pass (e.g. Isa. 46:10–11; Acts 2:23, 4:28). Because he is omnipotent, his goal of acquiring a “bride” (the Church) and establishing an eternal kingdom free from all evil will certainly be achieved (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:25–28; Eph. 1:16–23; Col. 1:18–20; Rev. 20:10). Scripture’s majestic portrayal of God is that of a sovereign, omnipotent Creator who is confidently guiding the world toward his desired end.

Many Christians have concluded that in order for God to accomplish his goal for creation, everything that happens in world history must somehow fit into his sovereign plan. This assumption has permeated the Church throughout most of its history. The assumption is often expressed in cliches Christians are sometimes prone to recite when confronting tragedies like cancer, crippling accidents, or natural disasters. Believers sometimes attempt to console themselves and others with statements like, “God has his reasons,” “There’s a purpose for everything,” “Providence writes straight with crooked lines,” and “His ways are not our ways.” (1)

I call this understanding of God’s relationship to the world “the blueprint worldview,” for it assumes that everything somehow fits into meticulous plan and mysterious purposes of God—a divine blueprint. The view takes many different forms, but each version shares the assumption that, whether ordained or allowed, there is a specific divine reason for every occurrence in history. As traditional and popular as the blueprint worldview is, it is not without significant difficulties. For one thing, this view makes it exceedingly difficult to reconcile the evil in our world with the perfect goodness of God, especially when applied to specific instances of suffering and evil.

For example, dozens of small children were recently buried alive by a mudslide in Mexico. Can we conceive of a specific reason as to why God might have deemed it better to allow this tragedy than to prevent it? To cite another example, several years ago a young girl was abducted from her own yard in a rural town in Minnesota. Her parents now live in a perpetual nightmare wondering every day if their daughter is alive and, if she is, wondering what is being done to her. Can we theorize a possible “good” providential reason why God might have thought it better to allow this nightmare rather than prevent it? Is it possible to encourage these parents to accept this nightmare as coming from their loving Father’s hand?

For many of us, the suggestion that God has a “higher reason” for allowing children to suffocate in mud or be kidnapped is insulting to those who experience the horror as well as to the character of God. (2) Indeed, some have abandoned belief in God altogether rather than believing that God’s “higher harmony” is somehow served by horrifying suffering. Like Ivan in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, these people abandon belief in God on moral grounds. “I renounce the higher harmony altogether,” Ivan announces. “It’s not worth the tears of…one tortured child…” (3) Any design that permits innocent children to suffer for a “greater purpose” is intrinsically immoral, he argues, and we are obliged to renounce it.

Introducing the Warfare Worldview
I believe Ivan’s rage is justified, but his rejection of God unnecessary. For, despite the above mentioned motif which stresses God’s sovereignty, Scripture does not support the view that there must be a divine reason behind all events. This brings us to a second and even more fundamental problem with the blueprint worldview: It is, I contend, rooted in an imbalanced reading of the Bible.

While Scripture emphasizes God’s ultimate authority over the world, it also emphasizes that agents, whom God has created, can and do resist his will. Humans and fallen angels are able to grieve his Spirit and to some extent frustrate his purposes (e.g. Gen. 6:6; Isa. 63:10; Luke 7:30; Acts 7:51; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7). Scripture refers to this myriad of other angels and humans who refuse to submit to God’s rule as a rebel kingdom (Matt. 12:26; Col. 1:13; Rev. 11:15), and identifies the head of this rebellion as a powerful fallen angel named Satan. It is clear that God shall someday vanquish this rebel kingdom, but it is equally clear that in the meantime, he genuinely wars against it.

This prominent biblical motif expresses what I call the “warfare worldview.” The world is caught up in a spiritual war between God and Satan. Unlike the blueprint worldview, the warfare worldview does not assume that there is a specific divine reason for what Satan and other evil agents do. To the contrary, God fights these opponents precisely because their purposes are working against his purposes.

Suffering takes on a different meaning when it is considered in the context of a cosmic war as opposed to a context in which everything is part of God’s meticulous plan and mysterious higher good. In the warfare worldview we would not wonder about what specific divine reason God might have had in allowing little children to be buried alive in mud or a little girl to be kidnapped. Instead, we would view these individuals as “victims of war” and assign the blame to human or demonic beings who oppose God’s will. Following Scripture, we would of course look to God for comfort in the midst of our suffering, trust that he is working to bring good out of the evil, and find consolation in our confidence that the war will someday come to a glorious end. But we would not look to God’s purposes for the explanation of why any particular evil occurred in the first place. In the warfare worldview, this is understood to be the result of the evil intentions and activity of human and angelic agents.

As is the case with the blueprint worldview, the warfare worldview is not without difficulties. Foremost among these is the question of how this view can be reconciled with the biblical teaching that God is the all-powerful Creator of the world. Since the warfare worldview denies that God always has a specific reason for allowing evil deeds to occur, must it not deny that God is able to prevent events he wishes would not take place? We may state the dilemma this way: It seems we must either believe that God does not prevent certain events because he chooses not to or because he is unable to. The warfare worldview denies that God always chooses not to intervene, for this would require the belief that there is a specific divine purpose behind everything. Hence the warfare worldview must accept that, at least sometimes, God is unable to prevent evil. But how then can we continue to affirm that God is all-powerful?

My conviction is that, unlike the questions that the blueprint worldview raises, this question has a plausible answer. The trinitarian warfare theodicy argues that the answer lies in the nature of love. As Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, God’s essence is love (1 John 4:8, 16). God created the world for the purpose of displaying his triune love and inviting others to share in it (cf. John 17:20–25). I argue that it was not logically possible for God to have this objective without risking the possibility of war breaking out in his creation. The possibility of love among contingent creatures such as angels and humans entails the possibility of war. Six theses follow from the nature and risk of love. These theses, if accepted, render intelligible the warfare worldview of Scripture as well as the problem of evil.

I don't understand why you think Ty Gibson's books don't address these issues, especially given that you don't have them. I guess you've read them in the past, and your recollection is that they didn't address these issues. Is that it?

God does not destroy the wicked by an arbitrary (i.e. "depending on individual discretion (as of a judge)") act of power. Rather, they die as a result of the choices they have made. Had God "left" Satan to reap the full results of his sin, he would have perished, but it would not have been apparently that his death was the inevitable result of sin.



I'll see if I can quote from Ty's book. Perhaps that will make sense to you.



DA 764 addresses this:



Also DA 108 and GC 541-543. In DA 108, it points out that the same thing that gives life to the righteous is what slays the wicked, so this can't be literal fire.

At any rate, to answer your question, God is the consuming fire.

Isaiah 33 is another passage which discusses this.



Here's something I wrote a couple of years ago, for comparison of my recent statements (in regards to your comment regarding most recent statements). I'll let you judge for yourself how what I'm saying now compares with this.


The Destruction of the Glory of God

"The judgment scene will take place in the presence of all the worlds; for in this judgment the government of God will be vindicated, and His law will stand forth as 'holy, and just, and good.' Then every case will be decided, and sentence will be passed upon all. Sin will not then appear attractive, but will be seen in all its hideous magnitude. (SD 361)

I would like to comment on the part which I put in bold. This is a very important principle.

God has told us that sin will result in death. Sin is lethal. The cross of Christ shows this to be the case. And also the death of the wicked, which this quote points out. When we underestimate the hideousness of sin, we are led in overstating God's role in the destruction of the wicked.

When we see sin as a weak thing, then God must do the destruction, because sin is weak and can't do it by itself. But sin is not weak! The destruction of the wicked will show this to be the case.

Note the following:



This also shows the lethality of sin.



Shows the same thing. God is not to be looked at as an executioner. The wicked reap that which they have sown.



Same idea. It is the glory of God which destroys sin. Note continuing down on the same quote that the same thing that destroys the wicked gives life to the righteous!



This is reminiscent of Isa 33:14, 15



Again this principle is explained in DA 764



Here is what we have seen:
1) God destroys no one.
2) The wicked destroy themselves.
3) Unbelief sows a sure harvest.
4) God is not to be looked upon as an executioner.
5) The same glory of God which gives life to the rightoues destroys the wicked.
6) God is a consuming fire to sin, so those who place themselves out of harmony with God, who insist on clinging to it, will be destroyed by God's glory.

Sin results in death. That is exactly what will happen to the wicked. Although God does not stand before the wicked as an executioner, the wicked will have destroyed themselves by placing themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence to them is a consuming fire, and they are destroyed.

In fact, it is in mercy that God allows the wicked to be destroyed, as they have no desire to live with God:



Here's one more quote that explains the principle that it is the glory of God which destroys:



If God's glory had not been shrouded, it would have destroyed us. At the judgment of the wicked, it is not shrouded, and it will destroy.

GC, how specifically do you believe the wicked are set on fire?

1.God's character causes spontaneous combustion, and ignites them.
2.God sends fire from heaven upon them, like a lightning bolt, and that sets them on fire, to burn like a torch.
3.The wicked are in a soup of molten lava, a sea of glass, and this causes them to be set on fire.

Or perhaps a combination of the above? Or none of the above? (something else (?))

Tom, do you think Ty's books teach the inevitable result of sin during judgment, as each sin is revisited, involves comprehending the contrast between their character and God's causing compounding mental and physical suffering eventually ending in death?

If so, do you think the physical presence of God is necessary for it to play out this way? Also, do you think literal fire will be present at the time? If so, what effect will it have on the wicked before they die?

PS - Please elaborate when you answer these questions. If they miss the mark, please take it upon yourself to clearly state your position. Don't wait until I'm clever enough to ask the right questions. Thank you.

Ellen White said the angels were fully aware of what God would do if they dared to persist in a course of rebellion. She wrote:

"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}


She says it is the "light of His glory" that will slay the wicked. Light, not character, will slay the wicked. This "light" is literal light. Light can be "veiled", but not so character. The effect of this literal light on sinners is painful and deadly; whereas, it is life and healing to the risen saints. Of this light, Ellen wrote:

But wherever men came before God while willfully cherishing evil, they were destroyed. At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed "with the Spirit of His mouth," and destroyed "with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess. 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4}

When the divine Presence was manifested upon Sinai, the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire in the sight of all Israel. But when Christ shall come in glory with His holy angels the whole earth shall be ablaze with the terrible light of His presence. "Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before Him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about Him. He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that He may judge His people." Psalm 50:3, 4. A fiery stream shall issue and come forth from before Him, which shall cause the elements to melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up. "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel." 2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8. {PP 339.2}

Moses "was permitted to see the bright light and excellent glory that enshrouded the Father." {EW 162.3}

The glory of the Eternal Father is enshrouding His Son. The brightness of His presence fills the City of God, and flows out beyond the gates, flooding the whole earth with its radiance. {GC 665.1}

So great was the divine glory revealed to Daniel that he could not endure the sight. Then the messenger of heaven veiled the brightness of his presence and appeared to the prophet as "one like the similitude of the sons of men" (verse 16). {RC 90.5}

Christ came to reveal to a fallen race the love of God. He, the Light of the world, veiled the dazzling splendor of the brightness of His divinity, and came to live on this earth as a man among men, that they might, without being consumed, become acquainted with their Creator. {UL 334.5}

They tell [Moses] 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. {3T 354.3}

And by the same logic, it would be equally true that all that man can know about God was revealed in the OT. Do you agree with that also?

In short, you believe that Satan, today, does not know that he is wrong. Correct?

None of the above options you have presented are without error, therefore "none of the above."

I see, however, that you have been shifting toward the view I have held all along, and is much the same as Mike has also presented--that is, that God's glory is a consuming fire, and it is a revelation of the same which consumes the wicked.

Going back to the alcohol I mentioned a few posts back as an illustration of sin...

Water does not burn.
Alcohol burns.
Water and alcohol can mix.
A combination of water and alcohol, because of the alcohol, burns.

In Revelation we are told "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelation 3:18-21, KJV)

Gold which has already been purified in the fire contains no more dross to burn. It can withstand the furnace. If it contains impurities, however, they will burn.

God's glory will burn everyone, righteous included. The difference is that righteous will be able to stand, whereas the wicked cannot. Psalm 1, Isaiah 33, Psalm 15, Isaiah 43 and other passages all speak to this issue.

Furthermore, God's glory will always burn--forever. The righteous will be able to stand in His presence. He is to be the light of the world, such that we no longer need the light of the sun.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

We know that God's glory will slay and destroy the wicked. But I'm challenging your contention that everything we know about God was revealed during Christ's 33 years, since never in that time did He slay or destroy the wicked. This one fact - the God will destroy the wicked, but Jesus didn't do it while incarnate - disproves your interpretation.

You are destroying a straw man. Read my argument again. I emphasized the part you missed in your rebuttal.

You believe that everything Jesus has ever revealed about God that we can know is contained in His 33-year history in Judea. Right?

Ok, I've confirmed my impression that his focus is only the earth, and that he says nothing about the conflict having begun in heaven.

GC and Arnold, what do you think about the idea that it is the literal light radiating from God that will cause the wicked to suffer and die?

Also, do you think the resurrected wicked are capable of comprehending the character of God in a way that will cause them to suffer and die? If so, why didn't it happen while Jesus was here in the flesh? And, why doesn't happen it now? What will change after the resurrection that the wicked are all of sudden able to comprehend God's character and suffer and die as a result?

Mike,

I think the symbolic light will cause the wicked emotional agony. Seeing what they have lost, for eternity, as a consequence of their sins, will be punishment for them. It may not be the full punishment. I do not know that we can accurately ascertain what their actual punishments will be. I can imagine that some of the wicked would just rather seek relief from it all in death, but death will not come immediately.

I think God is capable of making people comprehend things which they might otherwise have been ignorant of. There is ample evidence for this in history.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I'm having a hard time finding places in the Bible or the SOP where the wicked are described as suffering emotional agony due to their sins or a comprehension of God's character. Regretting being excluded from heaven is hardly emotional punishment. It's simply another expression of sin. Their response is a desire to take the New Jerusalem by force. When this is denied them, they turn upon one another in fits of rage. It is at this point that God is constrained to rain down fire from above and to raise up fire from below.

Mike,

What about "weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth?" In any case, as I said earlier, this may be only part of it. We are also told that fire and brimstone will be "the portion of their cup."

The only question is, which one will actually cause them the most agony...the grief at seeing what they have forever lost? or the physical pain? (And I do not agree that "regretting being excluded from heaven" is an "expression of sin." Is it wrong to wish they had been in Heaven? Should they wish to be in hell instead, as they are?)

I think Tom's view is leaning more to the emotional trauma as the only pain of significance. He views the fire as too torturous for a loving God. I'm not so narrow-minded on this, as I believe it may well be both emotional and physical.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I see what you mean. Good points.

RE: "And I do not agree that "regretting being excluded from heaven" is an "expression of sin." Is it wrong to wish they had been in Heaven? Should they wish to be in hell instead, as they are?"

2 Corinthians
7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

Of this kind of repentance and sorrow, Ellen wrote:

There are many who fail to understand the true nature of repentance. Multitudes sorrow that they have sinned and even make an outward reformation because they fear that their wrongdoing will bring suffering upon themselves. But this is not repentance in the Bible sense. They lament the suffering rather than the sin. Such was the grief of Esau when he saw that the birthright was lost to him forever. Balaam, terrified by the angel standing in his pathway with drawn sword, acknowledged his guilt lest he should lose his life; but there was no genuine repentance for sin, no conversion of purpose, no abhorrence of evil. Judas Iscariot, after betraying his Lord, exclaimed, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." Matthew 27:4. {SC 23.3}

The confession was forced from his guilty soul by an awful sense of condemnation and a fearful looking for of judgment. The consequences that were to result to him filled him with terror, but there was no deep, heartbreaking grief in his soul, that he had betrayed the spotless Son of God and denied the Holy One of Israel. Pharaoh, when suffering under the judgments of God, acknowledged his sin in order to escape further punishment, but returned to his defiance of Heaven as soon as the plagues were stayed. These all lamented the results of sin, but did not sorrow for the sin itself. {SC 24.1}

PS - Will any of the people named above change in judgment? Will they suddenly be able to experience a sinless form of sorrow and repentance? I doubt it. I suspect it will be sinful, an expression tainted with sin.

It's rather interesting that you view seeing the possibility of burning people alive as being not being "so narrow-minded." I certainly hope people such as yourselves, who are "not so narrow-minded," are never in a position of power to determine how people should be punished.





The principles of "kindness, mercy and love" can in no way permit burning people alive for days. It shouldn't be difficult to see this.

Also, setting people on fire to burn for days could hardly be construed as being "for their own good."

A little while later it says "their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves." Nobody would voluntarily choose to be set on fire for days.

But "kindness, mercy and love" can permit mental agony for days, leading to eternal death?


Tom, didn't you say that you were once asked to explain how subjecting the lost to eternally fatal mental anguish can be "for their own good"? And, IIRC, you said that 4 or 5 years later and you still can't answer the question. Do you see the double standard here?

Or maybe you have come up with an explanation of how eternally fatal mental anguish is good for the eternally lost. If so, please share it with us.


If I remember the account in GC, the lost were not running away from the New Jerusalem when their destruction came. And if my understanding of the events is correct, Satan didn't kick himself out of heaven. Or are you saying that Satan left heaven willingly, of his own accord?

Tom, do you think Ty's books teach the inevitable result of sin during judgment, as each sin is revisited, involves comprehending the contrast between their character and God's causing compounding mental and physical suffering eventually ending in death?

If so, do you think the physical presence of God is necessary for it to play out this way? Also, do you think literal fire will be present at the time? If so, what effect will it have on the wicked before they die?

PS - Please elaborate when you answer these questions. If they miss the mark, please take it upon yourself to clearly state your position. Don't wait until I'm clever enough to ask the right questions. Thank you.