I suppose there was "some value" in actually following the point where Tom was arguing that when reading Ellen White you can substitue "arbitrary" when you see "manufactured" -- and clearly that does not work as the example shows.

But you needed to have followed the point of the argument. Maybe you are just coming into it late.

in Christ,

Bob

MM has commented on this thread. I've been on this forum longer than you, and so have discussed these things with others, so can comment on a wider basis than simply those who have contributed to this thread. As to those who have commented recently, there's also Elle.



What's "the above"? You're not dealing with Mormons, JW's and Catholics here, although it's a bit ironic that you would bring them up.



I didn't argue this. I was very clear to point out what I was arguing.



Again, you're misconstruing things here. I've not made the argument you are suggesting.



You're asserting things that aren't in the text. I could go through the text and point out "The thing that Bob says is not here." "It's not here either." "It's not here either," and so forth through every line of the text, but that's not really necessary, is it?

If you're asserting something, and I challenge you that what you said is not in the text, it's up to you to show that it is.

??? Where have I done this?



??? Where have I done this?

To be clear here, what I'm taking issue with is not the text, but your interpretation of it. I've not once taken issue with text, saying, in any way, "I don't agree with what is written here."

What I've taken issue with is your idea that the wicked will be supernaturally kept alive so they can be burned alive by fire for up to many days to make them pay for their sins. The text does not say this. You are inferring this, and I'm taking issue with your inference.

Why do I take issue with what you infer? Because
1.It assumes that God has a character which is contrary to what is presented throughout Scripture, and, above all, revealed by Jesus Christ.
2.It would have Ellen White contradicting what she herself wrote on the subject elsewhere, including in the very same book.

The only text you've presented that you could even misconstrue as my having disagreed with is the EW text, which is obviously not literal.



I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that the things you infer are incorrect.



Sure I have. I've asked you repeatedly to show where in the text it says the things you are inferring.



Change the subject? What do you mean "change the subject"? The character of God *is* the subject.

Perhaps this is the problem. Apparently you think the judgment can be studied without reference to God's character. That's doomed to failure right off the bat.



That's pretty circular, isn't it? What I'm suggesting is reasoning in a straight line.

1.See what Ellen White has written on the subject of God's character.
2.Pay special attention to her statements regarding God's character on the subject of the judgment (for example, God loves His enemies; the destruction of the wicked is for their own benefit; the principles of love, mercy, and kindness are applied in the destruction of the wicked).
3.Read the quotes in question keeping this in mind.



Bob, you've still not answered my question.

You are suggesting a view of God's character that most would find horrific. You are suggesting that God will do things to our loved ones that we ourselves would not even to do our enemies. To supernaturally keep people alive so as to cause them indescribable physical pain is unspeakably cruel. How is it that you believe God is capable of inflicting such cruelty upon people He loves?

Bob, please be more careful in your expressions. I didn't suggest you could substitute "arbitrary" whenever you see "manufactured" in EGW's writings. This is wrong for two reasons. First of all, you have this backwards (I suggested that "arbitrary" could be substituted by "manufactured.") Secondly, this wasn't an across the board statement, but was limited to a specific passage, which I'll quote below.

Here's the background for my comment. You said that the destruction of the wicked is "manufactured." I said this was a good word to use, to express your thought, even better than "arbitrary," which is apt to be confused, as people may take its meaning to be "capricious" when it actually means "artificially imposed" (or "manufactured").

For example:



In this case "arbitrary" means "manufactured" not "capricious," which is clear by the context. If her argument were that God was not being capricious with His manufactured destruction of the wicked, she would have argued as to why such a punishment is just and necessary. But her argument is that the destruction is not manufactured by God, but is the result of the choice of the wicked themselves.

This is especially clear in the second paragraph. She says that had God left Satan to reap the full results of his sin, he would have perished. This is describing an even which is not manufactured. If Satan's destruction were manufactured by God, then it is not something God could have left Satan to experience.

You summarized those comments in the sentence above which does not address my comments. Unless, of course, you are agreeing with my observations of what you’re saying. Do you?


This passage doesn’t say they thought they were ready.


According to you, the reason the fire engulfed them and burned them alive is because God stopped preventing it from naturally happening. What was the organic connection between their sin and being burned alive when God let it happen? What is not arbitrary about it?

BTW, I’m glad you agree with me that God didn’t torment or torture them when He allowed fire to engulf them and kill them


Thank you for answering my question. Also, please note that I worded it in the following two ways – 1) the withdraw and permit method of allowing death and destruction to happen, and 2) the withdraw and permit method of allowing sinners suffer punishment. Do they correctly represent your view?


Does this mean you do think God withdrew His protection and allowed fire to burn Nadab and Abihu alive? If not, please explain.


Thank you for answering my question. I agree with you. What is the organic connection between their sin and the suffering and death God permitted to happen to them? That is, in what way did their sin cause them to suffer and die in the way they did when God permitted it?


Can those kinds of things happen while God is preventing them? How does God prevent the things He permits from exceeding His established limits? For example, how did He prevent all the first born from dying in Egypt? BTW, what caused the first born to die?


The context appears above, namely, (i.e. the flood, the fires of Sodom, the death of the first born, the fiery death of Nadab and Abihu, etc) My questions are related to these kinds of events.


“. . . His very presence is to them a consuming fire.” What part does the presence of God play in the suffering and death of the wicked at the end of time? Also, how does God prevent them from being burned alive while the earth is engulfed in fire and flames?

It is really pretty simple - we have a zillion examples of you claiming that I said something not there (usually without ever actually quoting me) -- and then me quoting the text showing that it is there. All you have to do now is "respond" to it.

In Christ,

Bob

I was hoping for a simple yes or no answer. Is it literal fire?


“I guess you think this is some sort of fantastic coincidence.” You didn’t really condescend and say this, did you?

There is no evidence that what gives and takes life is the righteous traits and attributes of God’s character. By your own admission you think it is sin, not the character of God, that causes the wicked to suffer and die. Have you changed your mind?

Character is a quality of the soul, it’s not an element or a substance that can give or take life. “True character is a quality of the soul, revealing itself in the conduct.” {CG 161.2} She said it is the “light” of the glory of God that gives and takes life. It is a scientific fact that light gives and takes life.

It seems you would have us interpret her statement above to mean – “The character of the character of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked.” Is this what you think she meant to say?


Can I apply this answer to my question above?


What do you think it is that causes them to suffer and die?


Punish, punished, punishment – these seem like odd choices of words to convey something that happens naturally. She speaks of God inflicting punishment. “The punishment inflicted on human beings will in every case be proportionate to the dishonor they have brought on God.” {LDE 217.3} She regularly wrote about it terms of God inflicting punishment. Listen:

Then follows the story of the temptation and fall, and the punishment inflicted upon our erring parents. Their example is given us as a warning against disobedience, that we may be sure that the wages of sin is death, that God's retributive justice never fails, and that He exacts from His creatures a strict regard for His commandments. {4T 11.3}

The statutes and judgments given of God were good for the obedient. "They should live in them." But they were not good for the transgressor, for in the civil law given to Moses punishment was to be inflicted on the transgressor, that others should be restrained by fear. {3SG 301.1}

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}

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}

His signal, visible displeasure may not be manifested as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, yet in the end the punishment will in no case be lighter than that which was inflicted upon them. In trying to deceive men, they were lying to God. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." {1T 529.2}


Where does it say in the Bible or the SOP that the wicked are already dead by the time God rains down fire upon the earth to cleanse it? Are you saying the following happens after they are dead:

"Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. . . The earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire."

No, MM. As I pointed out in my comment, which you cut out, you've misrepresented my position, and I've explained this to you already several times. I shouldn't have to keep pointing out the same misrepresentations over and over again. You should get it the first time.

I never said or in any way implied that angels were "clueless." I've quoted the following:









I didn't say that. I said, "They may have thought ..." By the way, thanks for including the context of our discussion. This made it easier for me to respond, as I didn't have to go back and look.



The organic connection between and death is the second death, which isn't this.



I'm glad you've changed your mind to agree with me. I know you used to believe that God actually caused this to happen, but now you're saying God "allowed" it to happen. Good!



MM, I've already explained this.

I would call this a "method" of destruction, because this could give the impression that this is something God is behind; i.e., that this represents God's will, or is something He wants to happen.

The following correctly represents my view:



I would extend this to not only be applicable to Satan, but to other acts which come as a result of sin, including indirect ones, due to being in a sinful world (such as natural disasters).



We've discussed this too. At length.



??? How? By overpowering God? What do you have in mind?



See the above GC 36 quote.



We've discussed this.



I believe God acted as laid out in GC 35, 36. We've discussed the details of these events elsewhere.



This has been discussed too.

I'm sorry to be so terse here, but I've written pages upon pages regarding these questions. Just recently I gave a detailed description of what I think happens in the judgment, which answers your questions here.

I understand your idea is that God supernaturally keeps people alive so that they can be burned by literal fire for many hours or many days in order to make them pay for their sins. You've indicated you agree with this characterization of your view.

Do you? If you do, then show me where the text says this.

I'd suggest taking a look at the conversation between MM and myself. You can see that we disagree with one another, yet the conversation is able to go forward. This would be a nice pattern to follow.

Hello, pardon the interruption. I just recently received a book by Steve Wohlberg and Chris Lewis entitled, The Character of God Controversy, and I believe they conclude that indeed God punishes, kills, and completely destroys in agreement with the justice aspect His character.

Also, in flipping to the back of the book, one can see names like Stephen Bohr, Jeff Reich, Marvin Moore, and Ivor Myers as possible supporters of this view. These, then, it appears, have taken the authors side of the issue. I share this simply as food for thought in this discussion.

William