I wish to reiterate that the most important issue to my view hasn't been dealt with, and that's one regarding God's character. What would God be like if He set people on fire, using supernatural power to keep them alive, so that the fire that engulfs them doesn't consume them, or kill them, or even damage their nerve endings, for the purpose of torturing them for many hours or many days?

Tom,

I have not claimed Mrs. White used other than the primary definition. You are the one who is actually not accepting the primary definition. You are attempting to accept a portion of it only, but not the whole of it. The definition, the primary definition, says arbitrary means not governed by any fixed rules; and not fixed by law.

Mrs. White, by using this word, plainly says that God's use of power is the opposite of this--i.e. that He abides by law in the use of His power. Again, she does NOT say that God uses no power. You, however, attempt to construe this as saying He does not use power. This rendition is unwarranted based on the grammar and terminology of the sentence. She does not say that God uses no power. Furthermore, other references of Mrs. White's writings clarify exactly what God will do. He will cause the lost to burn, some of them for days, and Satan the longest. Her words could hardly be more explicit on this point.

This is what I've been doing. I'm arguing that your "Y" is not true. But perhaps I have not been clear enough.

Your "Y" hangs upon a definition of "arbitrary" which is not in the dictionary. This is why we have spent so much time on this one word.

If I tell you that I am not eating chocolate ice cream, that I do not like chocolate ice cream (and never have), can you safely presume that I am not eating ice cream? No, of course not. I may be eating coconut ice cream (my favorite since I was introduced to it here in Asia).

If God is not using "arbitrary power" does this mean He is not using power at all? Again, the answer is no. If such were the case, Mrs. White would have needed to omit the word "arbitrary" entirely.

The adjective qualifies the noun. The noun is "power." The adjective is "arbitrary." What kind of "power?" It is not an "arbitrary power."

While I said these things earlier, it sometimes helps the concepts to be communicated when presented from a different angle. I do not expect that you will agree, but I hope I have helped you to understand my position.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The problem with your view, Tom, is that in order to hold it you must necessarily reject certain portions of inspiration.

Mrs. White tells us in no uncertain words that what you described above will happen (although she does not use the pejorative word "torture"). Do you think we mere mortals have any wisdom above God? Can we presume to know Him better than He knows Himself? He has spoken of these events through His prophets...do we now reject His words because reason tells us that they cannot be correct?

I was just reading earlier today in Mrs. White's writings about how the French placed the Goddess of Reason (a dancer from the theater) in place of God, and claimed that reason was their god. While they did this in a literal sort of way, we may also be guilty of a similar wrong by thinking we know better than God.

Mrs. White speaks plainly regarding the lost.



Mrs. White calls this act of God a righteous one. The "cleansing flames" have met the "demands of justice" as required by God's righteous law. I want to be among those who say "Amen," don't you?

In a sense, to deny the reality of this event is to deny a portion of God's law. I cannot, in good conscience, do so.

That statement is clear, too. God's character is revealed through this. Something to think about, isn't it?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, you haven't understood the definition. The definition is saying that "arbitrary" means "by individual discretion as opposed to by fixed law or rule." This means that instead of rendering a decision based on a rule or law, a person, like a judge, uses his individual discretion. It's not dealing with whether or not the judge is abiding by the law or not. Of course the judge, using his individual discretion, is abiding by the law. But there is discretion involved in his decision. It's not a fixed decision, with no space for individual discretion. That's the point of the definition.

In the Ellen White quote, she's saying that the destruction of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary, or imposed, act of power on the part of God, but, instead, is a result of the decision of the wicked themselves. This is her point, that the wicked die as a result of their own choice.

This is especially made clear in the case of Satan, where she says had God *left* Satan to reap the result of sin, he would have perished. If Satan were die to act of power from God's hands, then it wouldn't make sense to say that if God *left* Satan to reap the result of his sin he would perish, as in this case it would be God Himself who was causing His death. But her whole point is that it's not God, but sin, as she continues that in this case (if God left Satan to perish by reaping the results of his sin) it would not have been evident that death is the inevitable result of sin. Of course, if death *isn't* the inevitable result of sin, but due to and act on God's part, waiting wouldn't do any good. No matter when God killed the wicked, it would be evident that there death was not due to the inevitable result of sin.



This is incorrect. She is either saying that the wicked do not die as the result of an act of imposed power on the part of God, or that God is not acting capriciously in destroying the wicked by an act of power. In the former case, God wouldn't be using power at all. Both constructions are valid, based on the grammar and terminology involved. To settle the issue, the *context* must be the determining factor.



Again, this is not dealing with the most important issue, regarding God's character. What would God be like if He set people on fire, using supernatural power to keep them alive, so that the fire that engulfs them doesn't consume them, or kill them, or even damage their nerve endings, for the purpose of torturing them for many hours or many days?

I really don't understand how you can even entertain this idea. It should be obvious, on the face of it, that this interpretation couldn't possibly be right, simply on the basis that cruelty is Satanic.



You haven't presented any arguments, but assertions. I've presented an argument based on the text. I enumerated what she said, and explained why her points fit with the primary definition, but not with the second.



This isn't the argument, GC. The argument is that there are two possible definitions for arbitrary, the primary or the secondary. I'm arguing that Ellen White's point is that the wicked due not due to an arbitrary, or imposed, or discretionary, act of power on the part of God, not that God destroys the wicked by an act of power but is justified in so doing.

As I've pointed out, the context bears out what I'm saying. If she were arguing that God was justified in His use of power, she would have made some point relating to this fact. But she didn't. All her points relate to the fact that the wicked die as a result of their own choice.

The subject under discussion is what causes the death of the wicked. Is it an arbitrary act of power on the part of God? Or is it the result of the choices of the wicked themselves?

The subject under discussion is *not* whether that act of power which God uses is arbitrary or not.

Well, let's get right to the point here:

1) No, it is not an "arbitrary" act of power on the part of God.
2) Yes, the responsibility for the death of the wicked falls upon themselves. It was their own choice(s) that led them to this fate.

However, God kills them. They do not kill themselves. In a sense, God is ALSO responsible for their deaths, in that He executes the judgments.

To use a Biblical example...

The last two verses there, which I bolded, represent the scene well in terms of choices and responsibility.

The Amalekite, by his own choice, had earned the death penalty. David commanded that it be executed. Who was responsible for the man's death?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Not if inspiration agrees with God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ, which I believe it does. I think you're holding to a view which doesn't agree with God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ.



She uses this word in GC 536.



So setting someone on fire is, in her words, "torture." Your view isn't "unceasing torture," since you think it will end, but the setting on fire part is the same as what the eternal torment people believe, and she terms this "torture."



God has revealed Himself to us in and through Jesus Christ. The most important factor not reason, but revelation. It appears to me that you're suggesting a view which has God acting in a way which is completely at odds with what Jesus Christ revealed.



I may be suggesting that I know better than you, but I'm not suggesting I know better than God. I believe I can disagree with you without disagreeing with God.



I agree, and have been quoting her. I don't believe she taught that the wicked will be set on fire for hours or days. Teresa's posts seem to be bringing out that her contemporaries didn't take her words this way either. I know Waggoner, for one, wrote things very similar to what I've written regarding this subject.

There was a fellow who used to post here, Kevin H., who had researched this subject in detail from an historical perspective, who said that the idea that the fire was not literal goes back to the very beginnings of Adventism.



I hope, by God's grace, to be among the ones praising God for all eternity, and to "Amen" His finally destruction of sin, the greatest feat there will ever be (that and saving a fallen race). However, I won't be saying "Amen" to the setting on fire of people for hours or days at a time, as that won't be happening.



I'm not denying reality, but your view. Your ideas do not necessarily correspond to reality.



This sounds like a precursor to GC 541-543. God uses the principles of kindness, mercy and love in the judgment. She also says that cruelty is Satanic. These are among the reasons that I reject your view. It's not possible that God will set people on fire for many hours or many days in order to make them suffer. First of all, it's completely foreign to His character to act in this manner. Secondly, what purpose could there possibly be in burning people alive? Doesn't even the expression "burning alive" sound savage?

How is it you think that it is possible for God to do this? I understand you think this is what inspiration says, but this isn't what I'm asking. There could be some passage in inspiration which looks to be saying, reading in a cursory way, that God lied about some given thing. You would reject such a reading immediately, I would suspect, because you don't believe that God's character is such that He would lie (in addition to the statement from James). So what I'm asking is why you think it is possible, before considering that statement in Revelation, that God would set people on fire for many hours or many days.

According to the SOP, all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here with us in the flesh. What is Jesus' life or teachings would lead you to believe that He would set someone on fire, and keep the person alive for the purpose of causing that person excruciating pain?

This is contradicting what DA 764 says. She says *rather* than being an "arbitrary" act of power on the part of God, it is the choice of the wicked that causes their death. Let's consider DA 764:



Please note:

1.The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.
2.When one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.
3."All they that hate Me love death."
4.They receive the results of their own choice.
5.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.
6.The glory (character) of Him who is love will destroy them.
7.Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished.
8.This (death) is the inevitable result of sin.

Over and over again she makes the point she should be making if she's using the primary definition of "arbitrary." Not once does she make the argument she would have made if she had the in mind what you are suggesting for her.

Notice specifically she quotes Christ as saying that those who hate Him love death. "Love" hear means "choose" (as in when Christ said that those who didn't hate their father and mother weren't worthy of Him; this is speaking of preference, not the emotion. Christ is saying here that those who reject Him are choosing death).

The passage explains how it is that the wicked cause their own destruction. For example:

"When one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life."

The most important issue to my view hasn't been dealt with, and that's one regarding God's character. What would God be like if He set people on fire, using supernatural power to keep them alive, so that the fire that engulfs them doesn't consume them, or kill them, or even damage their nerve endings, for the purpose of torturing them for many hours or many days?

I haven't read the recent deluge of posts, but a quick comment for now....


There is no contradiction. Look at the definition again, one contemporary with EGW:

Whether we choose the first or second meaning, your interpretation still does not follow from the text.


You say we should take meaning 1. OK, let's do that.

Does the death of the wicked depend on God's will or discretion? IOW, does God choose who will be saved and who will be lost? No, He does not. He wants all to be saved, but each one must choose for himself. Those who are lost end up there because of their own choices, not God's whim.

Is this result not governed by any fixed rules? It most certainly is. There is no guesswork involved. By their fruits you will know them, not just have a very good idea. Our problem now is that we do not have full disclosure of each one's fruits. But everything will be laid out in the open during the judgment. Then everyone will see the "cause and effect" of God's judgment.

And what is the cause the effects the death of the wicked? His own wicked choices. You can't blame it on God.

EGW said, "This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God." She did NOT say, as you are suggesting, "This is not an act of power on the part of God." She was pointing out that the wicked are lost, not because of an arbitrary choice of God as Calvinists would have us believe, but the simple working out of God's laws - the soul that sins shall die.

But as MM pointed out, the wicked will not light themselves on fire. They won't light the whole planet on fire either. The cleansing of the earth will not be left in the hands of those who have proven themselves unwilling to do the right thing. That job is reserved for God; He will cleanse with fire.


What would God be like if He raised people from the respite of death, only to have them endure mental anguish of such proportions that it will cause eternal death?

Satan chose to separate himself from God long ago, but he's still around. Is he keeping himself alive? Or is it "supernatural power" that keeps him alive, to suffer through his miserable existence?

Plus, the SOP says that he will suffer for many days because of his sins and the sins he caused others to commit. Doesn't sin separate us from God, the Source of life? More sins means more separation from God, yes? More separation from God means less life, yes? But Satan lives longer than the rest of the wicked, according to the SOP. How is that, if not for supernatural power?

Your indignation is misplaced. The anguish of soul that the lost will suffer is much worse than any physical pain can ever be. But when the wicked receive their reward, the universe will not think God was bad for giving it to them.

Yes it does. She says that the death of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power of God. Then she says 9 or 10 times in a row that the wicked die as a result of their own choice. I don't see how the significance of this can be missed.

She says that had God *left* Lucifer to reap the result of his sin, he would have perished. If God were to cause Lucifer's death by killing him, she could hardly have said that God was leaving him to perish.

She says that death is the inevitable result of sin, but this would not have been understood had God allowed this to happen at the beginning. However, after Christ had died (please recall that this whole chapter is dealing with the theme of what Christ accomplished by His death) it was no longer the case that Satan's death would be misinterpreted. Why? Because the mechanics of the second death were seen in Christ's death.

How did Christ die? Did God kill Him? Or was it the "inevitable result of sin"?



Christ felt the anguish the wicked will feel, and this caused His death (next sentence). The death of the wicked will be caused by sin, as Christ's was, which explains how it is that Satan's death, and the death of his followers, won't be misunderstood in the judgment.



No she's not. Here's what she wrote:



This is saying nothing about the working out of God's laws. Not one word. It's saying precisely what I've said it is, that the wicked die as a result of their own choice. I can demonstrate this by simply copying and pasting what she said point by point:

1.The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown.
2.When one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.
3."All they that hate Me love death."
4.They receive the results of their own choice.
5.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.
6.The glory (character) of Him who is love will destroy them.
7.Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished.
8.This (death) is the inevitable result of sin.

All one needs to do to see what I'm saying is the case is to simply read what she wrote. One should attempt to make an argument based on what she actually wrote.

It's true that if one considers only the one sentence that it could be taken the way that's being suggested. But consider the sentences which follow. When one does this it's clear that her point is that the death of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, but due to the result of their own choice.



As the SOP points out, God acts in accordance with the principles of mercy, kindness and love, as well as in accordance with the principle of "Love they enemy." She also points out that the judgment of the wicked is for their own benefit.

Now there's no way that setting someone on fire, and supernaturally keeping them alive so they can experience excruciating pain (which she calls "torture") can be construed as "kindness" "mercy" or "love," nor being for the benefit of the wicked.



What's your argument here? That God is being cruel by supernaturally prolong Satan's life so that he can suffer?



What possible purpose could there be in God's setting someone on fire, and keeping the alive just so they can suffer excruciating pain? Ellen White terms this "torture" (GC 536). This would not be "eternal torture" but finite in duration, but torture nonetheless. Do you really want to defend the idea that God will torture those who chose not to follow Him?

Tom,



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.