You appear to be alone here on both sides...: sin isn't self-destructive - it merely cannot survive in God's presence for obvious reasons, and grace sustains it in the meantime so it might prove its case.

Your argument about arbitrary actions by God assumes an awful lot that it is meant in your quotes as unfitting for the wicked - human and angel alike, and not to caprice on his part; its primary meaning is judicial discretion in an unlawful manner - that's why there are appeal courts on earth!! Death in hell follows knowledge of the rejection of grace, by the trial of the ages on visual display (the wicked of earth seeing the whole story, after which they bow to Christ): that's judicial procedure, Tom, and fitting punishment for following God's evil adversary - all the facts are known to all humans now too - who rejected it, having heard it before, and that leaves judgement.

That positively upholds God's character, since he is holy, just, merciful, loving and graceous, etc, etc, and the wicked turn from that: here, too, he is just and merciful, giving them due punishment, proportionate to their evil, and actually letting them die to end the torment of unfulfilled dreams.

I don't think so. First of all, the thoughts I'm sharing are by no means original. Many of them, if not most, I've picked up from posters on this very forum! Also you should bear in mind that there are many who read posts that don't post. Also if you look through just this thread, you'll see I've not been alone in the thoughts I'm sharing.



What are the obvious reasons? Also, a correction: Sin is not self-destructive but destroys the one who practices it.



You assert this, Colin, but the evidence simply doesn't support this. There are places where EGW does speak of judicial process and judicial discretion, but DA 764 isn't one of them! Once again, I'll quote the paragraphs:



There's nothing about caprice here, but tons about the death of the wicked coming about as a result of their own choice.



Why would you think the fact that there is something on earth would be worth one exclamation point, let alone two?



Perhaps wanting to understand the heavenly by means of the earthly is a root of the difficulty with the concepts I'm sharing.



You emphasize that the wicked bow to Christ, which you evidently think demonstrates your point, but I would point to this very thing as demonstrating mine. The Great Controversy is all about demonstrating the truth. The wicked bow in recognition of the truth.

Let's take a closer look at the second paragraph from DA 764 cited above:



Notice this says that had God *left* Satan to reap the full result of his sin, he would have perished, and that God did not do this because the angels would not have understood "this." What is this? Looking at the context immediately preceding, "this" is that Satan's death would have been the result of his having so deformed his character that the presence of God would be a consuming fire to him, and God's glory (which is His character) would have destroyed him. This would have resulted in a seed of doubt arising.

A seed of doubt of what? A seed of doubt that perhaps Satan was right in his accusations against God. In order to defeat these insidious accusations, the truth regarding sin and Satan had to be demonstrated. This Jesus Christ did, especially at the cross. Now, after this demonstration is seen by all (including the wicked, at the judgment) God is able to allow those who have chosen to reject Him to reap the full result of their sin, without their being any seed of doubt involved regarding God's character, neither by those who have accepted, or even by those who have rejected Him (which their bowing to Christ brings out).



I agree with this, but it should be understood that the punishment is the result of sin, and not something arbitrary which God does to those who sin. Please note again that it is said that had God *left* Satan to reap the full result of his sin he would have perished. What is the punishment of the wicked? It is to be left to reap that which they have sown. This is exactly what DA 764 says, almost a dozen times, one right after the other.

My, you're not being very cooperative, are you? First I have to ask the question three times to get any answer at all, and then when you do answer, it's not a very satisfactory one. As I've been pointing out, I'm trying to understand what you believe. Rather than simply negatively responding to my posts, it's helpful if you can positively assert what you believe as well.

Regarding your question if I would like to agree with it, no, it's not what I believe, but it's closer than what some others believe, if I understand it, which I'm trying, without much success, to ascertain. If I can find some common ground, that can help in building bridges, which I think would be a good thing.

Ok, let's forget about the above phraseology, and get to the bottom line. What is it that you think will happen? Here's how I'm understanding your thoughts:

1)There is something akin to a session in court where the wicked are on trial.
2)The process of the court causes the wicked suffering.
3)God allows this suffering to continue until the wicked have suffered enough according to the evil they have caused.
4)God ends their suffering by blotting them out with literal fire from heaven.

Is this accurate or not? If it's not, please explain why not. Please feel free not to be held by my phraseology.

This is before the truth has been revealed to them. That their exclusion from heaven is voluntary is from GC 543. The pages 541-543 explain why.



This is explained by the DA 764 passages I've been quoting.

Well, we're never actually going to agree, here, which I was hinting at.

Judgement day shall come to sit to stop the attack on the New Jerusalem; beforehand the millenium shall have to be enough time to judge the wicked by the saints investigating their records, under Christ's supervision. Thus judgement day is an executive judgement, involving a summary of the case.

That shall produce mental torment, but the "fire from heaven" of Rev 20:9 shall not torment but punish according to records held, and shall end that day with eternal death itself.

Thus, they get the results of sin - knowing they're separated from God, but they are also due the wages of sin as well as the reward according to their works. Rev 20 ends with "the lake of fire", and it shall both destroy the wicked and cleanse the earth itself of sin.

This sounds to me similar to what I believe. The difference I see is you see that what causes the death of the wicked is literal fire, whereas I see that the literal fire purifies the earth (including the wicked as a part of that process), and takes place after the wicked are dead. You appear not to see that the literal fire causes the wicked pain (except momentarily, probably), which I think is very good.

Philosophically, there are more differences between our positions, but in terms of what actually happens, it doesn't seem that we are that far apart.

Sorry, Tom, I don't have time to talk past you endlessly like this, since you are fixed on God not being arbitrary, according to your interpretation of it. Since the wicked choose sin over Jesus, they end up, consciously or by self-deceipt, with God's judgement of condemnation foretold by Jesus in Jn 3, and God upholds his holy justice against sin both by Christ suffering his wrath against sin for the world, and the unrepentant cancelling that grace event and doing it themselves.

The Lord bruized his Suffering Servant - the Lord shall annihilate those who reject his Suffering Servant. There's no argument that sin by its very nature is against and separated from God: God's sovereign right of being judge over sin includes "fire from heaven" and "the lake of fire".

I was just pointing out that if I am understanding you correctly, you aren't far apart in terms of what will happen, although philosophically our positions are quite different, the main philosophical difference it seems to me being what I pointed out earlier regarding sin.

Tom, you and Colin seem to be worlds apart in your views of the lake of fire. I agree with Colin in that literal fire will be employed in the punishment of sinners at the end of time.

I think Colin is much closer to my view of things than yours. Here's what we see in common:

1.The wicked make plans to attack the city.
2.God reveals the truth to the wicked, about their lives, their sin, His own character, the times He tried to reach them, etc., and it is their seeing their sin that causes their suffering, which comes by way of mental anguish.
3.Each person suffers in this way in proportion to their own sin, the suffering being causes by the combination of their having sinned and God's revealing the truth to them.
4.The fire that comes down from heaven to destroy the wicked does not cause them suffering


The only difference in our position looks to be that I believe the wicked will be already be dead when the fire comes, whereas Colin believes the fires instantly destroys them while they are still alive.

I asked Colin several times if I was correctly understanding him, and he refused to answer, so the above points are inferences I've made based on his posts, but I think they're correct.