God is Love - He shows wrath, anger, love compassion etc. God has emotions.

My argument is that appeal to emotion is interesting but is not the same thing as actual Bible exegesis and given that all actual doctrine must be tested "sola scriptura" where exegesis is done in a way that is faithful to the text (i.e demonstrated context) -- we are back at the same non-starter when it comes to an argument from emotion.

in Christ,

Bob

1. ALL the wicked are "already dead" at the start of the Lake of Fire judgment event -- God has to raise them to kill them in the Lake of Fire.

2. God Himself describes this as HIS "tormenting them in fire and brimstone" in Rev 14:10-11.

3. Gal 3 says that God places all under a curse that are under the Law - and that this can be seen in the death of Christ. "Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree"- Who BECAME that curse On our behalf so that if we accept Him - we would not be subject to the Curse.

4. I pointed out that GOD has determined that the wages of sin is the 2nd death - the lake of fire - torment in fire and brimstone according to Romans 6.

5. I pointed out in Romans that God declares that ALL the WORLD is held to be "guitly" before God - and doomed to that "wages of sin is death" second death of Romans 6 - that starts with God RAISING the wicked to life so that He can destroy them in the Lake of fire.

And of course there is "this post" for those who want added material to look at besides the Bible ...
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=108825#Post108825


I am repeating the obvious points already made so far -- so I am a bit confused as to why your solution seems to ask that they be continually repeated. How is that getting us to the next step in the discussion?

in Christ,

Bob

On the contrary we have the "inconvenient details" so to speak of Rev 19 where we see Christ showing up with His heavenly army and we see the sword from His Mouth "killing the rest" (those who were not in the armies directly opposing Christ at His comming) instead of "end every body suddenly caught cancer" kind of ending.

We also see God describing this 2nd coming event in 2Thess 1 with the words "revealed in flaming fire -- dealing out retribution".

Again -- all these inconvenient details point to a created - manufactured event -- not simply "and then everyone caught cancer and died" kind of conclusion "because sin separates from life" ending.

------------

then we notice another large set of convenient details in Rev 20 - where ALL the human wicked are already dead -- but God rasised them to life (not a very natural thing to happen to dust) and then judges them in the GWT (again not simply the natural thing that happens to dust) and then tosses them alive in to the Lake of Fire (a condition in which we do not find earth today NOR do we have any science saying that we earth should naturally be in that condition).

And we have God Himself arguing that this is in fact the wicked being "tormented with fire and brimstone IN the Presence of the Lamb" in Rev 14:10

Which are all inconvenient details pointing to the manufactured/created/supernaturally arranged events of the 2nd death where Christ tells us to "FEAR Him who is able to DESTROY BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell" Matt 10:28

And of course there was "this post" for those who wanted added material to look at besides the Bible ...
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=108825#Post108825


All these texts have already been pointed out - as we know.

in Christ,

Bob

Again your solution is taking the innexplicable approach of arguing that I am the source of the texts and Ellen White's comments that are so contradictory to your suggestions.

I don't see how that helps you make a case here since we all already know I am simply reading those texts - not authoring them.

in Christ,

Bob

As much as that is an interesting idea -- it is not even remotely Bible exegesis. The text does not go away because "I would not do this to my worst enemy" such appeals are to emotion not to the facts present in the texts, which is clearly a non-starter. I can't figure out how you plan to get past that point.

in Christ,

Bob

So that all 66 books of scripture and all the inspired work given by the Holy Spirit to Ellen White is "what God has revealed about Jesus" -- ??

Or so that "just the red letters in the bible are of interest"??

I am not sure which point you are trying to make there.



If we still agree that Jesus Christ is the God of the OT and NT who inspired scripture and is the God of truth that gave the prophetic gift to Ellen White - then I agree. Given ALL THAT - we have merely to "accept" each inconvenient detail found there -- rather than choose would we might imagine to be a nicer solution instead.

in Christ,

Bob

I am not taking any of this as a personall argument against me on your part. I fully trust that you are stating in general principles the points that are in line with your view of God and the Bible in this regard.

Full steam ahead - hold nothing back my friend.

When I say "you make me the source simply because I quote the text" what I really mean is that your position is responding to people that woud take my view of this "in general" when they quote the texts that appear to support the "dealing out retribution in flaming fire" idea of 2thess 1 - etc..



indeed that is an interesting option - but as I keep pointing out there is nothing "organic" about the 2nd coming where Christ is "revealed in flaming fire dealing out retribution" to the wicked (a point that Ty never brings himself to actually address in his comments posted on this thread).

And as pointed out there is "nothing organic" about dust of Rev 20 being resurrected after the 1000 years or about the Great White Throne Judgment or the manufactured lake of fire or the "torment of fire and brimstone in the presence of the Lamb" in Rev 14:10-11 or all the "exact payment" language we saw in GC speaking to the subject of the Law and the penalty of sin and how it is paid in the lake of fire etc.

The mounds of non-organic examples given simply do not allow for a general hand-waive and sweep so as to re-cast it all as "organic".



If the policman is "organic to crime" and the jail house is "organic to crime" and the Judge and Jury are all "organic to crime" and the electric chair is "organic to crime" -- then we have change the definition for "organic" to cover almost every conceivable non-organic fact one could imagine.

Re-labelling it all with the term "organic" does nothing to lessen the horrific event of sinner tormented in fire and brimstone in the presence of the Lamb "AND of His Holy ones". As you pointed out it is the ACT it is the burning it is the fact that the wicked are being kept alive to suffer the exact amount of torment that is the issue no matter how many times we want to use the word "organic" when we see each of those details as described in the texts given.

in Christ,

Bob

You're ignoring the argument. It's a logical argument, which can be met by logic. I've not said anything against the texts, but against your interpretation of the texts.

Just where do you get the idea that I'm taking the approach of arguing that you are the source of the texts? This is poppycock.

Rather than deal with the arguments presented, you're making up spurious claims. I've not stated, intimated, or in any way implied that you were the source of the texts you've cited, which idea, on the face of it, would be preposterous anyway.



You're not simply reading them, you're interpreting them, and in a way that puts God is as negative a light as possible. You ignore the texts that would present God in a more positive way, and single in on texts that you interpret in a negative way.

I presented an argument from Scripture, showing that the wrath of God comes about when sin is chosen, and God withdraws.

I presented texts from the SOP which outline this in detail.

I presented texts from the SOP which depict the process of the destruction of the wicked as specifically *not* something God manufactures, but as rather the result of the choice of the wicked themselves.



What's your background in this, Bob? Have you been to the Seminary? Have you studied exegesis? Do you know what it is? I'm asking this because the approach you are taking is not one that any student of exegesis would recognize as such.

I have no qualms with your characterizing my approach as "not even remotely Bible exegesis," but your apparent assumption that your approach is very odd, since your approach has not been exegetical in the least.



You're not dealing with the issue. The issue does not go away because you refuse to deal with it.

There's a problem with an interpretation which has God acting in a way which is contrary to His character. Do you disagree with this assertion?

Once again, Bob, the problem is not the with text, but with your interpretation of the text. You seem to be equating these two things. Different people read the same text and come to differently conclusions. Just because you read it in a certain way does not make that way truth.



I'm not understanding what you're saying here.



Or here either. Perhaps you could flesh this out a bit. I don't know what you're trying to say.



This I understand!

You were questioning how what I wrote would be helpful insofar as supporting the model I was suggesting, so I made some brief comments regarding the model I was using. The model is that all we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ, that when we've seen Jesus Christ, we've seen the Father. Therefore any interpretation of Scripture which would have God acting contrary to what Jesus Christ revealed is suspect.

Jesus Christ said, "When you've seen me, you've seen the Father." Hebrews tells us that Christ is the exact image of the Father.

Jesus said, "No one can come to the Father but my Me." It is through Christ that we know the Father. He is the Word of God, God's thought made audible. If we would know the Father, we must know Christ.

Now what do we see when we look at Christ? How did Christ respond when He was urged to destroy with fire those who opposed Him? "You know not spirit you are of." "The Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

The SOP tells us, "Satan is the destroyer. The Lord is the restorer," that the destruction of the wicked is *not* a manufactured act of power on the part of God (she actually uses the word "arbitrary," in a way which is synonymous with "manufactured"), that we should not view God as one who executes a sentence upon the sinner, but that they bring their destruction upon themselves by their decisions. I'm not seeing how the ideas you are presenting harmonize with these principles.

It's hardly fair to find fault with Ty based on a snippet which someone else has posted from his works. There's no way a small snippet from a book could cover every possible question. To characterize this as a point which Ty "never bring himself to actually address" is hardly fair.



This is what we've been discussing. To simply assert this is not the case is not an argument. As I've been pointing out, it is organic, and I've been presenting evidence that this is the case.



I'm not sure what you have in mind by "it all." What specifically has been asserted is that punishment is organic to sin. This is what Ty said.



Or we could change our view as to what is happening in the judgment.



It's not a question of re-labeling, but an understanding of what's actually happening. This is where we differ.



This sentence badly needs to be split up, and commas. Here's what I think you mean:

As you pointed out, it is the ACT, it is the burning, it is the fact that the wicked are being kept alive to suffer the exact amount of torment that is the issue. It doesn't matter how many times we want to use the word "organic" when we see each of those details as described in the texts given.

I need to ask what you mean by "as you pointed out." I've been arguing against this whole perspective you have of what is happening in the judgment. How could I have been pointing this out?

The problem is not with the use of words, but with the perception of what is happening. I agree that if one perceives God as burning people alive, and supernaturally extending their life so they can suffer more pain, that such a view cannot be helped by labeling the process as "organic."

Again, the problem is not with the labeling of the process, but with the perception of the process.

is that "god" like us? or like the pagan gods? when we read the bible/sop are we reading it according to what we are/know?

does our view of God color our "Bible exegesis".



wouldnt that apply to everything? can we trust our understanding if we do this? this is how you read it.



this is what she said