I always pay attention to context. What sentence did you have in mind?



I always pay attention to context. I suggest others do the same.



I don't know what you're referencing.



Yes. The following expresses a similar thought.





Yes, but not as an arbitrarily decree, but by virtue of the fact that they have set their characters.



Yes. God does not take away anyone's power of choice.

Hmmmm.....

After the second resurrection, Tom? They can still avert their judgment even then?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I already commented on this. I suggest you reread what I wrote. If you have any questions on it, you can ask me. To answer the physical pain part of the question, I can't think of anything that would cause less physical pain than being set on fire. I think on a scale of 1 to 100, that would score 100.



What do you mean by this? I'm not aware of any inspired statement saying this. Do you know of one?



I don't think being physically out of sight or not is the important thing. Consider how blind people are judged, and this should become apparent.



The reasons are similar, or can be.



Christ felt the anguish the sinner will feel. By studying what He suffered, we can learn of the suffering of the lost in the judgment.



It sounds like you're disagreeing.



Perhaps it's not important that we know more than what's been revealed.



Again, perhaps it's not important that we know more than what's been revealed.



If you mean this in a non-trivial way, I disagree (by non-trivial, I mean that this is implying that it is God's desire or purpose that the wicked suffer and die.)



I disagree with this. As the SOP points out, wherever there is sin, it's inevitable that suffering and death will be present as well.



I disagree for the same reason.



I disagree for the same reason.



I agree with this.



No finite being could take in a full revelation of God, so God reveals Himself in a way that finite beings can behold Him.



I did so above. Of course, it's trivially true that the wicked could not experience anything if they were not resurrected, so if that's you're only point, I would agree that the wicked could not experience anything (thoughts, feelings, emotions) if they continued in an unconscious state, but I disagree with your statements if there's any implication that God has any desire or purpose in resurrecting them that they suffer and die.

I did read what you wrote. It didn’t understand how it answers my question. I need clarification. Just now you answered part of it by saying it will cause less physical pain than being set on fire.


Ellen wrote: “The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, "If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist." {EW 54.2}

1. The Father has a physical form.
2. His form causes sinners to cease to exist.


You didn’t answer the question. Also, how do you know they are resurrected without all five senses?


In what sense are they similar?


The presence of His glory will destroy them. What is it about His form and presence that will cause the wicked to suffer and to die? I believe the light He radiates is what will cause them to suffer and to die.


The light He radiates will cause them to suffer and to die. That much has been clearly revealed. No doubt it will be similar to the following description:

"The Lord cometh out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain." Isaiah 26:21. "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. And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them; and they shall lay hold everyone on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor." Zechariah 14:12, 13. In the mad strife of their own fierce passions, and by the awful outpouring of God's unmingled wrath, fall the wicked inhabitants of the earth--priests, rulers, and people, rich and poor, high and low. "And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried." Jeremiah 25:33. {GC 656.3}


Do you agree Ty doesn’t explain what causes the wicked to die?


Isn’t it obvious, Tom, that if God chose not to resurrect the wicked they wouldn't suffer and die as you describe? It’s not a trick statement. It simply states the obvious. Sometimes it’s important to state the obvious.


You left out a critical part of the equation, namely, the presence of God. “To sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire. If you choose sin, and refuse to separate from it, the presence of God, which consumes sin, must consume you.”

Also, how do you explain the fact the wicked do not suffer and die immediately after they are resurrected? Who or what prevents it? And, why don’t they die immediately after they finish revisiting their last sin? Who or what prevents it? They live on long afterward to fight among themselves.


What “glory” did Jesus “veil” with humanity? And, if He chose not to hide it what would happen to sinners?


The tree of life perpetuates life. God barred access to it to prevent the existence of immortal sinners. Said the angel: "Not one of Adam's family has passed that flaming sword and partaken of that tree; therefore there is not an immortal sinner.” {EW 51.2}


How did Jesus prevent His character from slaying or destroying sinners while He was here in the flesh?


God is simply complying with the demands of law and justice. Death must happen in consequence of sin. God must resurrect the wicked for this to happen.

PS - Why didn’t Lucifer or the evil angels suffer and die when they sinned? Who or what prevents it?

Do you really disagree with the first two definitions? And, are you absolutely certain “the light of the glory of God” never, ever refers to the light that radiates from God? Take another look at the following inspired insights:


Are you absolutely positive the light described above is NOT literal light? Are you sure God does not glow with a divine, heavenly light?


What do you do think caused the Jews so much pain when they looked upon the light reflected on Moses’ face? Ellen wrote:

So sacred and so glorious is the law, that when Moses returned from the holy mount, where he had been with God, receiving from His hand the tables of stone, his face reflected a glory upon which the people could not look without pain, and Moses was obliged to cover his face with a veil. {1SM 237.1}

The glory that shone on the face of Moses was a reflection of the righteousness of Christ in the law. The law itself would have no glory, only that in it Christ is embodied. It has no power to save. It is lusterless only as in it Christ is represented as full of righteousness and truth. {1SM 237.2}

They tell him that they cannot look into his face, for the radiant light in his countenance is exceedingly painful to them. His face is like the sun; they cannot look upon it. When Moses finds out the difficulty, he covers his face with a veil. He does not plead that the light and glory upon his face is the reflection of God's glory that He placed upon him, and that the people must bear it; but he covers his glory. The sinfulness of the people make it painful to behold his glorified face. So will it be when the saints of God are glorified just previous to the second appearing of our Lord. The wicked will retire and shrink away from the sight, for the glory in the countenances of the saints will pain them. But all this glory upon Moses, all this divine stamp seen upon God's humble servant, is forgotten. {3T 354.3}


I believe the unveiled radiant firelight of God destroys animate and inanimate things. Anything corrupted or contaminated by sin cannot withstand His radiant firelight. Unlike you, I do not believe the resurrected wicked are capable of comprehending the conttrast between their sins and God's character in a way that will result in them suffering the physical pain and mental agony you describe. They are sin-hardened and, therefore, incapable of the experience you dscribe.

By the way, in light of your view of judgment, how will the deaf and blind make out? If they cannot hear or see the panoramic representation of their sins on the big screen in the sky, how will they experience the physical pain and mental agony you describe? I suspect God will resurrect them with all their senses restored.

Like GC, I'm curious why you believe the resurrected wicked can confess their sins and be saved at last.

There were three questions there. I answered the question of choice, and quoted from GC 541-543, and made the same points that she did. I've pointed out that they've set their character, so they won't be saved, if that's what you're asking. My point was what I said, that God does not take away anyone's power of choice. I wasn't saying any lost person will be saved after the second resurrection, if that's what you're asking.

It doesn't sound like you read what I wrote. I spoke of the loss of losing a loved one, like a spouse or child. How would you compare this with the agony of being burned alive? Certainly being burned alive is physically more painful, but nothing compares with the agony of having one's heart broken by losing a spouse or child.

The flame which Ty spoke of which burns more terribly is the flame of love. Ty wasn't making an argument in regards to the physical agony of being set on fire.



This says "form," the same as Scripture (not "physical form")



She didn't write this. She spoke of beholding His glory. His physical form is not His glory.

I've mentioned blind people several times, MM. If you consider their case, it should be clear you're not looking at this the right way. You're couching things in physical terms, involving physical eyesight. If this were the issue, blind people wouldn't be impacted, since they can't physically see.



Yes I did. Don't you believe God is omnipresent? It sounds from your questions that you might not.



Ellen White comments on this. Also, even without her comment, logic would dictate this.



Conviction of sin, shame of being caught, sense of loss, fear of death; there are lots of similar factors.



The context doesn't support this idea. She speaks of the glory of Him who is love. This isn't a physical idea. The previous program speaks of the character of the wicked. The context is speaking of character, not of a physical problem.



Then blind people would be safe. The problem is a spiritual one, not a physical one.



Then the blind will be safe.



Ellen White understood the issues were spiritual.



He explains the spiritual issues, which I think is of primary import.



In a trivial sense, what you said is true. But non-trivially, in terms of intent, desire, or purpose, it's false.



You are, again, imo, misunderstanding spiritual truths as having to do with natural, or physical, things.



They haven't been judged yet. It wouldn't make any sense for them to die before being judged.



I don't have anything to say beyond DA 764 on this:





I commented on this already.



Again, we disagree, in that you see these things in physical/natural terms.



The cleansing of the temple discusses this, in "The Desire of Ages."



It's quite clear to me you're not understanding what I'm saying, and it's not clear to me that you can right now, simply because of the paradigm you are operating from. I think Ty Gibson has explained the same concepts I'm trying to share more clearly than I can. I'll quote some more from him in a subsequent post. You can see if you understand it.

I understand what you're saying. I don't agree with it, for the reasons I stated, which is you see the issues in a sense which I think is not dealing with the fundamental issues.

The law is not an arbitrary set of rules made up at random by God to prove His authority over us, but rather a practical explanation of what love looks like in real life…Sin is anything contrary to the character of God; more specifically, anything contrary to His love…

Love is God’s law, the principle by which He lives. It is a law because it is not arbitrary, but based on reality as it is, governing life by its righteous principles. Love is the law by which God made and sustains life….

Sin is the opposite, antagonistic principle at war with the law of love. Do not view sin as merely an alternative way of living, which happens to be harmlessly different from God’s way. God’s way is the only way to live, not because He happens to be more powerful and can arbitrarily punish us if we don’t comply, but because life is actually, intrinsically present only in God’s way, which is the way of love. The problem with sin is that it is wrong, actually, essentially, inherently wrong. And it is wrong for good reason, not just because the One in charge doesn’t like it. To be sure, God does not like sin, but He doesn’t like it because of what it does to is victims, not because He is a picky control freak who decided to come up with a list of arbitrary rules to keep us under His thumb. Sin, by its very nature, is anti-life. It is intrinsically destructive. Hence the Bible calls it the “law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2).

Once the nature of sin is understood, it is easy to see why sin is a law of death: sin is selfishness, the antithesis of love. As such, it leads inevitably to the exclusion of, and isolation from, the sustaining love and support of all others….

Because God’s love is the law of the universe, by which He created and sustains all things, the principles of that law are designed into our very natures. Within our psycho-emotional makeup, love is encoded as the law of life. When we violate that law, a malfunction signal issues a warning in the form of guilt. That part of our minds we call *conscience* senses discomfort with sin and identifies it as a destructive virus in the computer system, so to speak. Guilt is not arbitrarily imposed by God any more than His law is arbitrary. He is the Architect of conscience, but He is not the source of guilt. He made us with the capacity to feel guilt as a merciful and wise deterrent to sin, desiring, of course, that we would never experience its pain….

While God does not desire that anyone ever experience physical pain or the psychological pain of guilt, even more so He does not desire our utter destruction. Pain is a built-in mercy mechanism intended to aid in the preservation of life. Pain is not an indication that God is exercising some kind of power above, beyond, or contrary to His law of love in order to inflict suffering as an arbitrary punishment for sin. Punishment is organic to sin itself….

It is commonly thought that the connection between sin and death is imply that if we don’t repent of our sins God will kill us. Often no actual, intrinsic relationship is discerned between sin and death. But even a casual consideration of Scripture on this point persuades us otherwise. Notice just these few examples (quotes Gal. 6:7, 8; Rom. 6:16, 21-23; Rom. 8:6; Rom. 8:13; Prov. 8:36; James 1:15)…

So, when Paul says that holiness results in eternal life, he is not removing God from the equation and making life a mere naturalistic cause and effect matter. He is simply describing *how* God gives us eternal life….

God does not threaten, “If you keep sinning, I will kill you.” Rather, He warns, “If you continue in sin, you will die,” for “sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” And so He pleads, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die …? (Ezek. 33:11). We’re caught off guard by a question like this from God. We are more inclined to ask Him, “Why do You kill?” But He points to our sin and asks us, “Why do you choose death?”…

(quotes Rom. 5:11; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 2:24, 25; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15)
Please not the recurring point in the preceding verses:
• Through Christ we receive “atonement”; we are made one with God.
• The purpose of the substitutionary death of Christ is to “bring us to God”; not Him to us. God has demonstrated His reconciled position toward us in Christ.
• Through sin we have gone “astray”; but through the sacrifice of Christ we “are not returned” to God.
• The love of Christ, revealed in His death, causes us to cease living for self and to start living for Him; we are reestablished in the circle of selfless, other-centered love through the atoning death of Christ….

(discussing the three-party picture of the atonement)
1. The sinner, who has aroused the anger of God.
2. A wrathful God, who needs personal satisfaction that can only be derived from inflicting suffering and imposing death; only then will He even consider letting us off the hook with forgiveness.
3. A third-party victim, who is made to suffer and die as a substitute for the sinner.

There are a number of serious problems with the three-party picture, foremost of which is that it makes no legal or moral sense for an innocent third-party victim to suffer the penalty for the wrongdoer. If such an arrangement could actually satisfy God, then we would be forced to conclude that His law and His wrath are irrational and arbitrary, meaning there is no actual relationship between law and sin and death. If God’s wrath can be appeased by venting rage on an innocent third party, then it follows that there is no real problem with sin other than the fact that God doesn’t want us doing it: His law is arbitrary. Moreover, since we have failed to meet His arbitrary demands, we had better suffer ourselves or find a whipping boy to suffer in our place: His wrath is arbitrary.

Biblical Christianity proclaims, in extreme contrast to the third-party view of substitution, that God has given Himself as our Substitute, to bear our sin and its inherent, divinely-ordained penalty. Hence there are only two parties involved in the atonement: 1. The sinner, who has aroused in God a painful tension between a holy, rational anger against sin and an equally holy, rational mercy toward the sinner. 2. An infinitely just an definitely merciful God, who loves us so selflessly that He has chosen to give Himself to suffer and die as our Substitute….

So what actually happened on that hill far away as the Son of God hung between heaven and earth? Did Christ bear the wrath of God at Calvary? What part did the Father act in the suffering and death of Christ? A number of Scriptures bear a consistent testimony to answer these questions:

(quotes Acts 2:23, 24; Acts 4:24-28) ….

Did the Father cause the suffering and death of Christ?

Yes and no!

Yes, if we mean He delivered Him over to suffering and death according to His own wise purpose of grace. Yes, if we mean that the Father gave up His Son to experience the tormenting psychological agony of our guilt.

No, if we mean He acted as an arbitrary source of pain and death, as the tormentor and executioner of His Son. No, if we mean that the Father assumed a position of vicious hostility toward His Son. Christ suffered and died at *our* hands, under the burden of *our* sin, by the gracious, self-sacrificing purpose of the Father….

In holy hatred of sin and unrelenting love for the sinner, the Father handed over His Son to bear the guilt inherent in our sin and to endure the selfish, murderous rage lashing out from our sin. This fits perfectly with Paul’s definition of divine wrath. He explains that it is God giving sinners over to receive in themselves the penalty inherent in their sin (Romans 1:18-28). Christ felt “forsaken” by God, “delivered” up to suffer all that sin ultimately is, not pounced upon with hostility.

The Father was right there with His Son all along, behind the darkening veil imposed by our sin, feeling the pain of the agonizing separation.

I can love a God like that. I am so glad He is that kind of God. You can love Him too. I know you can, because your heart, like mine, yearns to love and be loved with such passionate grace.

That was Ty Gibson, from "See With New Eyes."