The glory of God is His character. The light of the glory of God is the revelation of that character. To know God is eternal life, to those who open their hearts to respond to the Holy Spirit. To those who have chosen to resist the Holy Spirit, the effect is the reverse.



GC 543 says the following:



DA 764 says:



So, putting this altogether, it sounds like the wicked do not want to live, and God grants them their desire.

The glory of God is His character. The light of the glory of God is the revelation of that character. To know God is eternal life, to those who open their hearts to respond to the Holy Spirit. To those who have chosen to resist the Holy Spirit, the effect is the reverse.



GC 543 says the following:



DA 764 says:



So, putting this altogether, it sounds like the wicked do not want to live, and God grants them their desire.



Yes, I did. Here's what I wrote.



The first paragraph directly addresses your question. The final paragraph brings out that it must be the case that sin results in death, because the alternative is not viable.



This the same as "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. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.(DA 764)," which I just discussed above.

Regarding #109864, you wrote:



This is not how I responded. I responded like this:



What's going on here? Why are you posting things together to give the impression that I responded in a way I didn't?

I can't respond to your posts if you're going to do this. It just takes too much time to go back and see what I actually said, to verify that you're quoting me accurately. I shouldn't have to do this. I should be able to rely on you to quote things accurately.

You didn’t answer the question.

Nothing you wrote above explains how sin causes sinners to suffer and die. Why doesn’t sin cause sinners to suffer and die now?


These insights make it clear that it is the glory of God *not sin* that destroys sin and causes sinners to die. Please note that she does not say, Sin destroys sin and causes sinners to die.

Here's the actual post, the way it actually appears:


So, as you can see, I didn't do anything differently than you do, namely, omit the quotes and certain comments. You do it all the time. At any rate, how did I compromise the meaning of your post by abbreviating it the way I did? In your repost above you left out the following paragraph:


Why did you omit this part in your repost? Then you asked, "Why are you posting things together to give the impression that I responded in a way I didn't?" The part you omitted is the part I included in my response. It was the only thing you wrote in response to my post that actually addressed what I wrote. By the way, it doesn't actually address what I wrote. Here's what I said:

Tom, please respond to 109857, the rest of 109864, and 109865, 109867.

Ok, that's a good explanation. I'll buy that.

If you put elipses, that makes it clearer that the response does not immediately follow. Without ellipses, the implication is that it does. So this would be clearer:



The reason I didn't include this is because I didn't see it. The reason I didn't see it is that without the ellipses, the implication is that it should have been right there, that I should have to hunt for it.

I'll respond to the post now.

This leaves out comments I made, which did address your comment.



For the reasons explained in DA 764 (seed of doubt paragraph).



You should! You've asked me this over and over again. No, I don't.



Yes. But I sure wouldn't call this a "method of destruction."





In this case I think it was more that Nadab and Abhiu acted directly contrary to God's will, which He permitted, with disastrous consequences for them.



Yes, sometimes.



They might, in regards to the first question. Regarding the second one, God doesn't permit Satan to exceed His established limits, if that's what you're asking. I would certainly not want to word things in a way that gave the impression God was behind these things happening.

I like the way EGW put it:





I don't remember the context of this. In general, God acts as EGW explained in GC 35, 36.



I think the suffering and death of the wicked is the direct consequence of their own actions. It seems clear to me that this is precisely what DA 764 is saying:

I've explained what I think will happen in great detail. I spent several pages explaining this.

Regarding whether ""The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked." is referring to firelight, obviously not. First of all, firelight does not give life to the righteous. Secondly "light" = "revelation" and "glory" = "character," so the meaning is that Christ, revealing the character of God, gives life to the righteous, whereas this revelation slays the wicked. This is brought out by the context. The *very next sentence* states that Christ is "the revealer of the character of God." I guess you think this is some sort of fantastic coincidence.

Next post. Regarding the fire being literal or symbolic, I think the fire which causes the wicked to suffer and die is symbolic, whereas the fire that purifies the earth is literal.



I think some suffer for many hours whereas others suffer for many days.



Yes, this is the punishment. It's not arbitrary. It's a reaping of what has been sown. God leaves the wicked to reap the full result of their sin, and they perish, just as DA 764 says. Sin pays its wages: death.



As I've said many times, I think they're already dead at this point. If they weren't they quickly would be, baring some supernatural action on the part of God. The earth is a lake of fire. No one can survive in a lake of fire.