Regarding 109616, OK and thank you.

Regarding 109617, she cites the same passages in DA 764. She's explaining the same event there, and citing the same Scripture. There's absolutely no doubt that DA 764 is discussing the destruction of the wicked. Therefore it has every bit as much right to be discussed and considered as the GC text.

We should do what she says, and take into account all that she has written on a subject.

Here's the key point. Her thinking on the subject did not change from the time she wrote the Desire of Ages comments to the GC comments. Indeed, there are chapters in the GC itself which have the same thoughts.

So the same person who wrote that God should not be considered as the executioner of the sentence of the wicked, that the principles of kindness, love and mercy, as well as loving one's enemy, that their destruction is for their own good, that their exclusion of the wicked is voluntary with themselves (all this from "The Great Controversy"), that the principles of cruelty are not involved; all these things, also wrote the GC 672 passage.

It's the same person. She cannot, without being schizophrenic, have one character in one place of the book and another elsewhere in the same book. The same way she believes God to be in chapter 1 is how she believes God to be in the last chapter.

The interpretation you are suggesting is one which it seems evident to me, based on many of her comments regarding God's character, but especially GC 535-536, would be one she would see as presenting God as cruel, according the caricatures of the enemy. For example:



So we have two issues here. One is, you are able to interpret a passage in way which I believe would have God acting out of character (immorally and cruelly). You apparently don't see the actions you are suggesting as being either of these things.

Secondly your methodology is suspect. You're trying to isolate a text and look at it without considering what else the author has written on the subject or anything else. This isn't how proper exegesis is done.

You didn’t answer the question. Who or what is keeping Satan alive if sin is what causes sinners to suffer and die?


Are you talking about the angels who you claim were not secure until after the cross? Do you think they knew things would eventually play out favorably for God and unfavorably for Satan? If so, upon what did they base their belief?


It sounds like you’re saying they think sin will cause Satan to suffer and die.


So, you’re saying they didn’t understand that sin will cause Satan to suffer and die until they watched Jesus suffer and die on the cross? Did they fear God as they watched sinners suffer and die throughout the OT? If not, why not?


It sounds like you think they were pretty much clueless regarding Satan, that they weren’t really sure he was deserving of death. But it also sounds like you think they were comfortable with sinners suffering and dying for their sins (when God employed the “withdraw and permit” method of allowing death and destruction).


You’ve said this before but so far you have been unable to show it in the Bible or the SOP.


It sounds like you think they were in limbo for 4,000 years not sure what causes death, not sure if Satan was wrong, hoping God was right. Such unknowns would, one would think, make heaven hell. It must have been terribly confusing for them in light of all the times God commanded them to, as you see it, stop preventing evil angels from harming or killing sinners. What do you think was going through their minds?


Do you think God was tormenting or torturing the Sodomites when He allowed fire to engulf them and kill them?


The question is - Do you think God has ever employed the “withdraw and permit” method of punishment to allow literal fire to burn people alive? I am, of course, referring to the stories of fire killing sinners in the OT. And, yes, I do not see in the inspired descriptions sinners engulfed in flames at the end of time. True, the descriptions depict the planet as a molten, seething lake of fire, but it doesn’t show sinners engulfed in flames.


Did you misread the question? I anticipated you saying, Of course God can do no wrong!


I had in mind your view of how and why death and destruction happens (i.e. the “withdraw and permit” method you advocate).


I’ll rephrase the comment and ask a question. According to you, God has, from time to time, withdrawn His protection and permitted the pent up forces of nature to cause death and destruction. Are such results consistent with God’s character? Is it accurate to conclude the results are right and righteous because God permitted it to happen?


What is an example of a confused idea?


Can we conclude that when God employs the “withdraw and permit” method of allowing death and destruction to happen (as you advocate it) that it is right and righteous? For example, we know from inspired descriptions that the wicked will suffer in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness on a planet engulfed in fire and then they will die and their bodies will be burned to ashes along with the rest of the rubble and rubbish of earth. Can we conclude that this scenario is right and righteous because God is the one who will permit things to play out in this fashion?

Going on the principle that Ty articulated, that the punishment is organic to the sin itself, I see the full penalty for the sin being visited upon the sinner when he suffers the result of reaping the full result of that sin. That is, the punishment is not something artificial, like a physical fire, which has nothing to do with the sin, but is inherent to the sin, having to do with the pain of conscience, of remorse, of guilt, of regret, of separate and loss; things like that. This is what Christ refers to when He speaks of "weeping and gnashing of teeth."



More sin = more regret, more remorse, more guilt, more pain of conscience, etc. How much light one has enters into this as well.



Yes, and just as it means.



I don't understand this question.



I suggest thinking of things as "principles" rather than "details." The principle being spoken of is one of proportional suffering. Now it's entirely logical and reasonable to suppose that one who sins more will suffer more, whether one accepts the organic concept or the arbitrary (or "manufactured") one.

So what is the mechanism which causes this suffering? If we look to Christ's death, we see that literal fire has not do with it. Also by looking at DA 107-108, GC 535-536;541-543, GC the first chapter, and DA 764, we see the idea of literal fire doesn't work. Only if you read GC 672 in a vacuum, with no concept of Ellen White's character, nor what she had written on this subject in other places, could you come to the conclusion that God will literally burn people alive to make them pay for their sins.

What kind of God would do that? Not One which Ellen White describes.



Yes, what you are suggesting is diametrically opposed to what I'm proposing, which is based on taking into consideration what God is actually like, in addition to other passages the author wrote dealing with the same subject, as she requested we do.



I don't think you've caught the principle of considering all an author has written on a subject. Nor taking into consideration God's character.



It's pretty obvious, Bob. I was referring to this passage:



Does she really have to say this is not a literal fire?

This insight does not justify your view as I stated it above. What makes you think God can do or be something that causes the wicked to suffer such unimaginable emotional and physical agony? Surely you don’t think they are naturally capable of suffering so without God being present. What causes them to suddenly suffer so?


This idea seems to assume the character of Jesus did not cause sinners to fear for their lives (unless divinity was flashing through humanity). How do you explain this? Also, you seem to be assuming the literal light that accompanied the flashing forth of divinity played no part in the fear they felt. Why?


Nothing in that passage explained it. It simply said they would welcome death because they wouldn’t feel good in heaven. It doesn’t explain how or why they will feel the way they will while suffering in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness on a planet engulfed in fire.


According to you, the radiant firelight emanating from God is His character. If character causes God to glow, why, then, didn’t Jesus glow? Or, did He? I’m talking about literally glowing like the sun, moon, and stars glow. Or, do you think the radiant firelight emanating from God is symbolic of His character and that it isn’t actually referring to literal light? Either way, literal or symbolic, what laws or dynamics are at work which results in God’s character traits and attributes causing unprotected sinners to suffer such unimaginable emotional and physical agony?


I am reasonably certain the fire engulfing the planet will contribute to the physical pain the wicked will suffer at the end of time. I don’t see how it can’t, unless, of course, God shields them somehow like He did in the case of the three Hebrew worthies.


It’s firelight, not fire. There is a difference. For example, sunlight is firelight, not fire; nevertheless, if channeled through a magnifying glass it can cause things to ignite and burn up. The same firelight that hardens clay melts wax. The difference is the substance upon which the firelight shines. In the same way, sinless flesh (skin) thrives in the presence of the radiant firelight emanating from God, whereas, sinful flesh (skin) suffers and turns to ashes (unless, of course, God regulates it). "But wherever men came before God while willfully cherishing evil, they were destroyed."

You didn’t answer my question if you agree with how I labeled the other passages.


This is vague. From what I’ve read so far you force everything to agree with your view of how God metes out justice and judgment. You also seem to assume the radiant firelight emanating from God does not have a negative physical effect on sinful flesh (skin). Your method is not objective. It does not allow for the possibility different sources and effects of fire are being described. You seem to assume all the different sources and effects of fire symbolize the same thing, namely, the character of God. I'm talking specifically about the fire that results in sinners suffering emotionally and physically (as opposed to the fire that burns the rubble and rubbish of earth to ashes which you agree with me is literal fire).


Are you referring to the following passages? If so, please explain.

3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
3:2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he [is] like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
3:3 And he shall sit [as] a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
3:4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.

BTW, do you think the following passage is describing literal fire?

Zechariah
14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Tom, I'm bumping this up for your convenience:

"Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them."

Tom, please explain to me how the righteous traits and attributes of God's character destroys sin. Is sin a substance that can be destroyed or caused to feel emotional or physical agony? Will sin turn to ashes?

Not exactly, but you could put it that way. It was the revelation of God's character. God's goodness made clear their malignity.



Sure, Jesus shrouded God's glory. He had to. He was like the burning bush, where God's glory was encapsulated in a way which could be beheld. His whole purpose was to reveal God, so this was necessary. However, at times, divinity flashed through humanity, which was a sharper revelation of God's glory (character).



It was God's character. As the SOP description points out, they feared they were in the presence of One who could read their innermost thoughts; their secrets were laid open. It was like when Jesus wrote with His finger in the sand, and everyone left. Jesus spoke of this point in John 3:





The glory of God was shrouded.



It's right and proper to criticize positions we hold to be false. You do it all the time, as does everyone else in the forum.



I am careful. I reread my posts, looking more than anything else at the tone. It's difficult not to make mistakes, especially when someone is critical of you (I'm not speaking of you here, just saying in general). Usually I make a first pass, where I just try to write what's on my mind, to get the thoughts flowing. Then I go back and prune things, taking into account that in a written medium things will seem sharper than they would in person, where you can hear a person's voice or read their body language.

This doesn't mean I don't goof, of course. If you point out something which looks out of order, I'll correct that. Or, often, if you just say you don't like something, I'll abide by your wishes. However, not criticizing a position you hold which I view is wrong is just business as normal, something you yourself, and every other participant on this forum does.

In this particular case, you often say things like "I don't know why" or "This doesn't make sense" or "This isn't valid" or "God has His reasons why" or something similar, which indicates a lack of understanding. If you hold to a position that you have no understanding of, you should seriously consider abandoning the position, as there is a high likelihood that it is wrong. This is where common sense comes in, which is one of the methods God uses to communicate with us. If something doesn't seem right, it may well not be right.

Now the fact that one holds a position that one has no understanding of does not mean it has to be wrong; it could just be that one is lacking understanding. If this is the case, one should obtain understanding. In topics like the death of Christ, we have so much light, there's no reason to not understand why Jesus died.

This doesn't mean we need to understand everything about it, as it's a subject which will continued to be studied through eternity, but we should know something of the general principles involved, meaning not just facts, but be able to reason through things, from cause to effect.



Nothing from inspiration says this. Inspiration says "the glory of God is His character."



???



I don't know why you think God's glory causes sinful flesh to burn. I agree with the other point, a point which would be have a negative impact on one's physical being, but I don't know about causing flesh to burn.



MM, it wouldn't do any good, even if there were a passage which said exactly this. When we were discussing the fall of Satan, you argued that Satan hadn't sinned, I said the following:



And this is indeed what happened. You were presented with a passage referring to the "sin" of Satan, and you replied



So this request rings hollow.

The statement says that had God left Satan to reap the result of his sin, he would have died, but it would not have been understood that his death was "the inevitable result of sin."

Now how can this possibly be understood in any other way than that Satan's sin causes his death?



According to the passage cited, when God leaves the guilty party to reap the result of his sin.



No. Look at DA 107, 108; also DA 764. That's what I'm saying.



Again, see the DA quotes. I've also quoted from Ty Gibson at length. I like his thoughts on this subject. I can repost it if you like.

I've also mentioned DA chapter 1 in this context. This speaks of how self-sacrificing love is the law of life for the universe. This is contrasted with selfishness, which the essence of sin, which leads to death.

Now let's assume, for the sake of argument, that sin didn't lead to death. Then that would mean it would be possible for one to live by being selfish. But that's impossible. Selfishness can not support life.



It's not an algebraic formula, just shorthand. A is sin, B is death.

You've misrepresented my thinking on this quite a number of times, and each time I've corrected you. At least half a dozen times.



Again, I've quoted the following many, many times, probably over 100.



This is what I think. Just what it says. Had God left Satan to reap the full result of sin, he would have died; but it would not have appeared to the angels that this was "the inevitable result of sin."



Many times I've quoted from the chapter "It Is Finished." DA 764 is the clearest place I know which speaks of this, although the first couple of paragraphs of this chapter also do. The part of DA 764 I quoted above speaks to this.



You think Ellen White thought they were in limbo for 4,000 years not sure what causes death, not sure if Satan was wrong, hoping God was right? I just quoted from her, right? So if you think it sounds like this is what I think, you must think this sounds like what she thinks too. Otherwise, please tell me how:



differs from what I quoted above.



This sure doesn't help clarify your thinking. You already know what I think. I haven't changed my mind on this. You have. Please let me know how your thinking has changed.



I've never spoken of a "'withdraw and permit' method of punishment." I've pointed this out several times, and pointed out why not. Again, I've explained my thinking on this many, many times, and my point of view hasn't changed. Yours has. I'm trying to understand how.

I'm glad you don't see sinners as being engulfed in flames. Very glad.



This is from Scripture:



This is what I've advocating.

1.God's anger is kindled when people choose sin over Him.
2.God hides His face (forsakes/departs).
3.Many evil and troubles come as a result.
4.These evils come because God is not among them.

If you want to label this something, you can call it "The Deut. 31 method."



Yes. These are examples of the "many evils and troubles" that come as a result of God's "hiding His face."



No. The results aren't, but God's actions are consistent with His character.



No, not at all. The results of sin are wrong and unrighteous. However, God's actions are right and righteous.



The idea you used to have of sinners being engulfed by flames is an example.



The "Deut. 31" method.

"of allowing death and destruction to happen (as you advocate it) that it is right and righteous?[/quote]

If you're referring to what God does, yes.



This is right and just. Given that punishment is organic to sin (since you're asking about what I advocate, and I advocate this), it makes perfect sense that people would suffer in proportion to their sinfulness; in fact, this is the only thing that makes sense (assuming "sinfulness" equates to light rejected and sin knowingly performed).



I think this is misleading. A thing isn't caused to be right or righteous because God allows it to happen. There's no cause and effect here. Also God often allows evil and unrighteous things to happen, and it would be a big mistake to call something like the crucifixion of Christ or the holocaust a righteous thing because God allowed it to happen.

I agree with the idea that the scenario that plays out is a right thing, but not for the reason given.

I don't think this is something God "does." I think it is something God saves the wicked from, as long as possible. I think without God, suffering would be intolerable. All good things come from God. Without God, there would be only wretchedness, selfishness, misery. God is not the cause of misery; selfishness is.



God in Christ shrouded His glory. What literal light? You mean this?:



I think this "divine light" did have a play in their fear, but this is not a literal light. Do a search on "divine light" in the SOP and see how she uses this term.



We disagree on this. I'm glad you didn't write the passage if this is all you see in it.



So they'll feel hot, like in the desert? Something like that?



What other passages?

I don't see how this could be symbolic. What would it be symbolic of?



Comparing this with other passages, such as DA 107-108 and DA 764, this would have to be symbolic (or the other passages would be wrong). Plus it would be consistent with God's character.



This makes perfect sense, as I've explained. If punishment is organic to sin, it has to be this way.



Yes, same as 3.



This is symbolic. The thought is the same as 3 and 4. A "portion of them unconsumed" is clearly symbolic. What would the alternative be? If the fire burned a portion of them, it couldn't be the part with the brain, as they wouldn't able to suffer without a brain. So their limbs? What? It doesn't make any sense to interpret this literally. She's describing what she literally saw, but the meaning isn't literal.



Same as 5. Clearly symbolic.