Tom,

I am not meaning to offend you, only to help you understand that I see the same loving and merciful side of God that you do, plus I see another side. You claim the two sides are mutually exclusive, and cannot co-exist. I do not see it thus. You've heard of the proverb of the glass half-filled with water--how some see it as half empty while others see it as half full. This is a similar situation, except that I seem to see a full glass whereas you appear to see a half-filled one. As long as you focus on the half, and insist no other portion is possible, you can never hope to understand, much less agree, with what I see.

In other words, I do not really think you see what I am trying, with my poor ability, to explain. You are kicking at the idea that God could ever use such strong measures as He will use. Instead of recognizing that He will do what He says He will do, and looking for a way of fitting these "strange acts" into a model of His loving character, you are vilifying these actions and then saying that God cannot do them.

It is true that God will not do villainous things. However, it is not true that the things that God will do will be villainous. I see righteous acts which God will do in justice and punishment. You seem to see any form of justice and punishment as vengeful and unrighteous. If you look at white and call it black, I can never hope to get you to agree with my viewpoint, because you are not able to see what I see.

It's like the concept of God. Some missionaries have made a mistake in learning a language and latching onto the wrong word to use as the word for "God." Because that word has a lot of baggage within the language, the people, afterward, have a difficult time of ever seeing who God really is. Our discussions here are similar. The words of the English language are deficient. I cannot hope to describe to you what I see, when the words I must use come with baggage to you.


This is true. The problem is that the way you interpret God's use of power, you are concluding His acts would fall under one of these terms. I disagree with that definition. In other words, according to what I believe, God will not use violence, but will impose punishment upon the wicked, which they will not be able to avoid (their probation having already closed). They have had opportunity, and lost this opportunity, to choose God. "He that is filthy, let him be filthy still." When Christ utters these words, it is forever too late for the wicked to change their minds. Their choice has been settled for time and eternity. In a sense, they no longer have the ability to choose God. They no longer can choose to be saved. They still are free to think as they wish, until their lives are extinguished forever. But even then, that choice will be limited. They will be forced to see scenes of their life from which they might rather turn away. They will be forced to see Christ coming in clouds of glory..."every eye will see Him." They might rather not see Him, for we are told they will try to hide themselves from His glory, and cry for the rocks to fall upon them. Did they choose to behold Him? Hardly.

You are telling me that you read Ellen White to say "God does not force the will or final judgment of any."

Then I think it is safe to conclude that if what you believe is true, there will not be a final judgment. The wicked would never choose such a fate. On the contrary, they will fight to take the New Jerusalem to try to get inside--rather than say limply "I choose to be excluded and to be killed by God's glory." In fact, they will not even be permitted (nor do I think they will try) to take their own lives. Their death will not be of their own choosing--this time, anyway.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The fact that you believe God could burn people alive makes it abundantly clear to me that you see a different side to God than I do.



I would put it differently. I see a glass completely full with the prevailing powers of love and truth, and empty of force and violence, as opposed to a cup half-filled with each. To be clear, I'm using the word "violence" according to its ordinary use, in which burning people alive is violence. I know you have said that you consider violence to be sin, so you wouldn't term God's burning people alive as "violence," so perhaps I should say that you see the cup half-filled with love and truth, and half-filled with force and what people would ordinarily refer to as violence as manifest by such acts as burning people alive.

At any rate, the crux of the matter is that you appear not see that the principles that Jesus Christ manifest in the flesh, principles of "kindness, mercy, and love," are sufficient to deal with the problem of sin. You see that God must take what appear to me to be draconian measures, using tactics that the enemy has used (burning people alive), as opposed to the tactics of one's own government, which are the principles of kindness, mercy and love.



As long as I believe that Jesus Christ revealed the Father, I will never be able to understand, much less agree, that God would be capable of actions you seem Him capable of, such as burning people alive. It saddens me to see that you have these ideas, and it saddens me that I am unable to communicate that truth that God does not have such a character as would permit Him to do such a thing in a way that you can see this truth.



It's not that the measures are "strong," but that they are unspeakable cruel. I can't imagine the mental process that goes on that would allow one to conceive of people being burned alive for days and not comprehend that this is cruelty.



The evidence simply doesn't support your ideas, from many angles. I'll mention a few.

DA 764, which speaks of the destruction of the wicked, says the glory of love will destroy the wicked. The glory of love is not literal fire.

DA 764 makes the point that if God has "left" Satan to reap the full results of his sin, he would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that this was the inevitable result of sin. Burning Satan alive would not be the inevitable result of sin, but something God was doing to him. There would be nothing to misunderstand in this case. EGW's statement in DA 764 wouldn't make sense. God could not have *left* Satan to perish if He is the one who *causes* Satan to perish, and it could not be misunderstood that Satan's death was due to something God did to him, as opposed to being the inevitable result of sin, if, in fact, Satan's death was caused by something God did to him.

The GC 541-543 passage doesn't make sense if God burns people alive. One could hardly characterize burning people for days as using the principles of "kindness, mercy and love." Also, we're told that the exclusion from heaven is voluntary on the part of the wicked. They would hardly volunteer to be set on fire for days. In addition, the passage points out that heaven itself is torture for them. So why would God need to inflict them with some arbitrary form of pain, when simply keeping them around would do the trick?

Earlier in the same chapter, EGW speaks of the teaching of eternally burning the wicked as "unceasing tortures." If eternally burning someone alive is "unceasing tortures," then doing so for a finite period of time would be "ceasing tortures." The same arguments she puts forth, in regards to cruelty, and the lack of feelings common to humanity, would apply. It's not simply that the "tortures" are "unceasing" that's being dealt with in this passage. There's more to it than that.

Another point is that when man sinned, Christ said, "Let the punishment fall on Me." Christ tasted the second death. Our punishment fell on Him. We can learn from His death what the punishment of the wicked will be like. Christ felt the anguish which the wicked will feel in the final judgment. It is not coincidence that the passage in DA 764, discussing the destruction of the wicked, is in the chapter that discusses what Christ accomplished by His death. One of the things He accomplished was to enlighten us as to the nature of the second death.

A final thing I'll mention is that Jesus Christ fully revealed the Father, so much so, that He said, "When you've see Me, you've seen the Father." There is no "other" side of God, other than the side that Jesus Christ revealed.




It's wrong to lie, or rape, or steal, or be cruel. God doesn't do these things. Burning people alive for days is cruel. If that's not cruel, the word "cruel" might as well not even exist.



Burning someone alive for days is cruel. Cruelty is Satanic. Burning someone alive for days could never be a righteous act.



No, not any form. I've argued against one specific form, and that is that of burning people alive for hours or days.



Or the other way around. For example, I look at burning people alive for days as "black," whereas you seem to looking at it and calling it "white."



It's not the words that have the baggage, but the concepts the words convey. That is, no matter what words you use to describe burning people alive for days, that concept will be one I perceive as cruel.

Aside from that, I put forth a number of arguments as to why I disagree with your point of view. See above. You could respond to those, if you wish.

All the ones you didn't respond to in my last two posts. It doesn't really matter, though, since this thread is basically a duplicate of the "What is the inevitable result of sin?" thread.

The following passages make it clear it is God who will punish and destroy resurrected sinners:

"The power and authority of the divine government will be employed to put down rebellion; yet all the manifestations of retributive justice will be perfectly consistent with the character of God as a merciful, long-suffering, benevolent being. {GC 541.2}

"The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}

"Who will say God will not do what He says He will do?--12MR 207-209; 10MR 265 (1876). {LDE 241.3}

"His dealings with the human race, God bears long with the impenitent. He uses His appointed agencies to call men to allegiance, and offers them His full pardon if they will repent. But because God is long-suffering, men presume on His mercy. "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." The patience and long-suffering of God, which should soften and subdue the soul, has an altogether different influence upon the careless and sinful. It leads them to cast off restraint, and strengthens them in resistance. They think that the God who has borne so much from them will not heed their perversity. If we lived in a dispensation of immediate retribution, offenses against God would not occur so often. But though delayed, the punishment is none the less certain. There are limits even to the forbearance of God. The boundary of His long-suffering may be reached, and then He will surely punish. And when He does take up the case of the presumptuous sinner, He will not cease till He has made a full end. {3BC 1166.1}

"Very few realize the sinfulness of sin; they flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the offender. But the cases of Miriam, Aaron, David, and many others show that it is not a safe thing to sin against God in deed, in word, or even in thought. God is a being of infinite love and compassion, but He also declares Himself to be a "consuming fire, even a jealous God" (RH Aug. 14, 1900). {3BC 1166.2}

"The death of Christ was to be the convincing, everlasting argument that the law of God is as unchangeable as His throne. The agonies of the Garden of Gethsemane, the insult, the mockery, and abuse heaped upon God's dear Son, the horrors and ignominy of the crucifixion, furnish sufficient and thrilling demonstration that God's justice, when it punishes, does the work thoroughly. The fact that His own Son, the Surety for man, was not spared, is an argument that will stand to all eternity before saint and sinner, before the universe of God, to testify that He will not excuse the transgressor of His law. Every offense against God's law, however minute, is set down in the reckoning, and when the sword of justice is taken in hand, it will do the work for impenitent transgressors that was done to the divine Sufferer. Justice will strike; for God's hatred of sin is intense and overwhelming (MS 58, 1897). {3BC 1166.3}

PS - Nothing in the passages above leads me to conclude God will withdraw and permit sin to run its course. Nor do they make me think something other than God will punish and destroy the wicked.

It certainly does seem to me that I've answered these questions asked many times. So I agree that it doesn't matter.



Not sure what you mean by this.



Yes, God punishes and destroys the wicked. That's stated many times. The disagreement isn't of this, but over how this works. Is the punishment arbitrary? Or is it a consequence of sin? Is the destruction arbitrary? Or is it a consequence of the choices the wicked have made?

Or, to ask the question another way, how does the destruction work? Here's how I think it works.

Sin causes us to believe things about God which are not true. This is seen in Adam and Eve's behavior after they sinned. God had not changed in His attitude toward them; He still loved them, just as much as before. But sin changed *them*. They ran and hid from God. They had become deathly afraid of Him, even though He had given them no reason to. Sin made them act irrationally.

This impact of sin is unavoidable. It happened to Christ on the cross. Christ felt doomed. He felt lost, abandoned, without hope. But God had not changed. God still loved Christ, as much as ever. In fact, far from abandoning His Son, God was suffering with His Son. He left heaven to be close to Him. God and the angels were there at Calvary. God was crucified with Christ.

But Christ couldn't sense these things. Instead, His sense was of being abandoned. This is what sin does to one.

(Something important to note is that Christ was able to overcome this effect of sin by faith. He died triumphantly, convinced in His Father's goodness, regardless of His inability to see through the portals of the tomb.)

If God did nothing to help us, sin would cause us to separate from God, who alone is the source of life, and we would perish. For example, "God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life."(DA 764)

So God sends us light, in order to save us from the death of sin. This is how God saves us, and how He destroys us. If the light is heeded, it is for our salvation. If it is resisted, it is for our destruction.

Consider Pharaoh. Scripture says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. The SOP makes it clear that God did so by sending Him light. The hardening of the heart took place as Pharaoh sent Him light. So God "hardened" his heart. How? By being nice to Him.

That's the same way God destroys. The principles of mercy, kindness, and love are the means by which God destroys, just as these were the principles by which God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Actually, hardening Pharaoh's heart is how God destroyed him. When a person's heart becomes totally hardened, the person is lost. At the judgment, the person won't be able to stand the full revelation of God's character, which is His kindness, mercy and love.

So what God does is to give us His mercy, kindness, and love in small doses, which is healing for us, if we respond. By this means God is able to save us from sin, and prepare us to meet Him in His full glory, which is the fullness of His kindness, mercy and love.

If we refuse His kindness, mercy, and love now, we won't be able to stand it in the hereafter. We won't want to have anything to do with God, or those who love Him, and will voluntarily choose to be excluded from heaven. We will judge ourselves.

The glory of God, *who is love*, will destroy us. It doesn't seem to me that you ever recognized the import of the "who is love" part. If the issue were a physical one, having to do with radiant light, the "who is love" part wouldn't fit in. But the real issue has to do with God's character. The preceding sentence says, "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." This is talking about character.

The whole Great Controversy is about character. The character of God is under dispute. God vindicates His character through Jesus Christ. How we respond to the revelation of God's character is what fixes our destiny.



Not responding to the revelation of God's character is what fixes the destiny. If we don't respond to that revelation here, we won't be able to respond to it in the hereafter.

God reveals His character through Jesus Christ; His kindness, mercy, and love; His goodness. This is how He destroys.

How about if you look at the burning as a natural result of sin which God has been preventing all this time, but will stop preventing during the Judgment? The Bible says He is a consuming fire to sin, but He has, in mercy, prevented it from happening. But when the Judgment happens, He will allow sin's natural consequences to occur.

If you look at it that way, it is even more palatable than the "mental anguish death" that you espouse, since that mental anguish will be worse than physical burning, according to Ty, which you agree with.

What do you think?

That makes perfect sense to me, and I don't have to discard the statements regarding fire coming from God. You can even apply it to Nadab and Abihu - God didn't burn them, He just stopped preventing their sin from naturally burning in His presence. And it stands on the same foundation as your mental anguish, except the fire is less painful.


I think we can also say that the glory of love is not mental anguish, yet you believe that the wicked will experience that.

If one understands this from the standpoint of love being the flame, as per Ty, this makes sense to me. The wicked cannot stand the flame of love, which enlightens the conscience. This burning causes suffering in proportion to the guilt of the sinner, depending upon how much he has sinned, the types of sins committed, and the light he had.

However, if the idea is that it causes spontaneous combustion, that runs into a couple of problem. One is, it sounds funny on the face of it, that a person would just burst into flames. Secondly, we're told that some will suffer for up to many days. That wouldn't be possible, unless God supernaturally took action to enable this fire to only cause pain, without killing the victim. Also, supposedly, the purpose of the fire would be to do what could only be called in this life "torture" the victim, God would have to take action to make sure the nerves were not destroyed by the fire, or else the victim's suffering would end prematurely. So this who line of hypothetical action has God acting in a very cruel and heartless manner, certainly contrary to the principles of "kindness, mercy, and love" which GC 542 expresses.



Ty didn't say the mental anguish will be worse than physical burning.



You'd have to discard a lot of other statements, however. For example, DA 764; GC 535-536,541-543; DA 107-108, off the top of my head. Also, the teaching from both Scripture and the SOP that Jesus Christ revealed the Father. One can hardly imagine Jesus Christ would set people on fire, and not only sit by and watch them suffer, but contribute to the suffering by not permitting the fire to destroy the victims or the victim's nerve endings.

The whole concept is hideous. I don't understand how anyone could seriously consider it for more than a second or two.



The fire isn't less painful. When Ty said the flame was more terrible, he wasn't saying that the pain caused by love caused more physical pain then being set on fire. He was saying that the pain of love is worse than physical pain, which is true. If you've lost a loved one, a child or spouse in particular, then you can understand the idea Ty is expressing. The emotional pain of loss is worse, in a sense, then any physical pain. That's the point. Not that the physical pain of being burned alive for days is not as physically painful as the emotional pain caused by sin.

Also, a big problem in this idea, apart from the obvious problem of having God acting unspeakably cruelly, is that in the physical fire scenario, God is arbitrarily inflicting the pain upon the wicked. Even if you argue that they catch on fire through some process of spontaneous combustion, God will still have to be taking arbitrary action to prevent the wicked from dying, or for their suffering to cease by not allowing their nerve endings to be destroyed. In the case of Nadab and Abihu, they would have suffered for seconds, not days.

In the scenario of the emotional and mental anguish that sin causes, God is doing nothing at all arbitrary to cause either suffering or pain.

Who told us this?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thank you for reiterating your view. But you still haven't answered the question. What causes resurrected sinners to die? If you were the coroner responsible for pronouncing them, what would you say was the cause of death? Or, do you believe God hasn't revealed it?