Not from the SOP it wouldn't. Just copy/paste, assuming you're looking up stuff online.

I don't see what you're getting at, in relation to DA 764. Those paragraphs bring out that the death of the wicked (i.e., the second death), is due to their own actions, as opposed to an action God takes against them.



This should be several sentences. I can't parse out what you're trying to say here.

DA 764 isn't dealing with capital punishment, but with the destruction of the wicked.



Regarding character development, I was referring to this:



This, by the way, I believe is a good explanation of God's wrath; giving a person over to the results of their choice.



That's an awfully broad characterization of "basic necessities of life."



These are included in the "thousand dangers, all of them unseen."



You wrote, "God actually wanted to have and show mercy to anyone who would repent." Since you spoke of what God "actually wanted," this is what I commented on. God "actually wants" to show mercy on anyone who repents all the time.

I don't know why you're bringing up a distinction between what God wants and chooses to do, as you weren't speaking to this, nor did I.



I don't see why you're pointing this out. That is, how does this tie into our discussion?

I believe the only reason God chooses not to have mercy on someone is that they do not desire it (I'm speaking in the true sense of the term, meaning that they desire mercy from a sense of having done wrong -- i.e. truly repentant --, but not merely that they don't want to suffer the consequences of what they did).



I was referring to the sentence in GC 614.2 that you had in mind.



Focusing on this sentence:



I agree with this. In the case of the destruction of Jerusalem, the unmixed wrathful judgment was caused by God's completely His withdrawal of protection against Satan.



Ok, I wasn't understanding this. I agree with this. (More later)

As I have said and substantively explained/defended before, many times, I see no difference in the first and second death. It is still “normative death”. Only the sustainedly allowed suffering in before the Second Death is allowed to be effectuated, is what somewhat distinguishes them, though, as I see it, it does not change the (ultimate), identical, “death” factor involved. So that guides my understandings here. And I do see capital punishment as being a microcosm of what will occur in Hell where I also see that sin and sinners will be eradicated by an act of God (Rev 20:11-15 (cf. GC 672.2-673.1; EW 294.1ff) = 19:17-21) and not by “critical mass”/ “self-combustion”. Indeed I see EGW’s “consuming fire” statement to actually be more figurative than literal. As per example, in this statement:



As I explained before, I think both the 7000 years and the way in which this GC was allowed to develop where God did not defaultly abandon those who sinned against Him to their own way, but allowed them to get a saving knowledge of the Gospel, resulting in the end that all will claim the name of Christ and really only be violating the letter of a single commandment, that, what I term, a “critical mass” stage of sin will not occur at the end of these 7000 years. Perhaps if God removed all of the righteous then and left these rebellious “Christians” on earth to live ca. 3000 more years, where now they knew that they actually were not Christians/approved by God and also that they had no chance of salvation, that these will then live out a life that comes to be ‘so out of harmony with God’, i.e., deliberately violating the spirit and letter of all of the Ten Commandments, that they indeed would self-combust in the mere presence of God. As also explained before, I still see that this would become the case only if God allows this to be and this is naturally done by Him not finding any actionable element in a person upon which He can have mercy. Indeed even in the situation with Satan coming into the presence of God and “surviving”/living it was evidently because the GC issues were not yet transparently self-demonstrated, as it will even more fully be at the end of the allotted ca. 7000 years.



This editing/clarifying should help.



As I said above, I see the final destruction as the ultimate/anti-typical “Capital Punishment” for sin, and then all and any sins, since the conclusive, though not necessarily exhaustive, self-evidence will be in/available then. Indeed since God knew that sinner can live a very long time, even eternally as sinners if their physical body/health was “therapeutically maintained” by the Tree of Life, these 7000 years, as seen in the symbology of 7 (vs. 10) is only a perfect representation/sampling of a much larger possible whole.



What confused me is that you didn’t specify “character” here and it could go either way, good or bad. I also sequitur saw that you had meant ‘good character’ with your ‘leading to making the right decision’ qualifying, which I further do not see as being achieved by God by permitting someone to sin. EGW, as seen in DA 763.3, foundationally has in mind either ‘good or bad character’ (= “two classes”), but it is the ‘developed bad character’ that she is exclusively focusing on throughout DA 764.1.



I don’t think so. I think you are seeing it as broad as you include in this judgements that God actively done. I.e., Fires from heaven/cloud/Most Holy Place, the Flood, the Plagues. I understand that you see the world in a state of chaos that need the constant actions by God. I rather see that the Earth can come to “skewly” develop a catastrophic problem and God, when this is about to occur, intervenes to avert it at times, especially if it will result in a, relatively speaking, not proportionally deserved destruction/loss of life. But sometimes he lets them happen, hence “natural disasters”.

So God’s (would be, i.e., if EGW actually said/revealed this) keeping the planet in its proper orbit is a basic necessity for sustained life. Indeed most of these “thousand dangers” may be of this “basic necessity type” which all should have occurred as a result of sin.



Probably, though I have a harder time of understanding them as “dangers,” which I see more to be “natural obstacles” than caused/attempted-attacks by Satan. They may however be “traps” set by Satan for God’s people which they can be harmed by when God justly no longer prevents them from walking into them.



Well then I had “misunderstood” you, (according to your wider view) to mean: ‘God always wants to have mercy, therefore He never does, nor is involved in, judgements.’ Therefore my distinction was to emphasize, as I more widely theologically understand it, God may want/prefer to have mercy, but in some case he is left with no other choice but to enter into judgement, which He most times, Himself does/administers/executes, even when mixed with mercy. I.e., even with some mercy involved, it can still be a devastating judgement (e.g., Judah’s (2 tribes) Babylonian Captivity (vs. Israel’s (10 tribes) Assyrian Captivity)).



When God wanted to have mercy in the first parts of the war, permitting both Christians and then also Jews to freely escape alive from this judgement through repeated war haltings/“cutting shorts” (cf. Matt 24:22), I see that His Spirit influenced the Romans and later Titus to take actions towards this merciful end. However late in the war, when God no longer wanted to have mercy, as He actually could not, Titus was permitted to become indignant, and that over something substantively insignificant, and the actual “Destruction of Jerusalem” occurred then.

So I see this development as being typical of God and indeed what will occur in the 7 Last Plagues with some, though non-salvific, mercy for the first 6 and no mercy in the last one.



Of course a genuine repentance is key in this act of God. And God cannot grant something that is not genuinely requested. In the War of the Jews, those who wanted to surrender peacefully to the Romans did so probably out of a desire to prevent further destruction to what they considered God’s property. And that in itself was/would be relatively noble. I can only see that God’s hand and mercy was involved up to the utter destruction end phase, because the entire residents/occupants of Jerusalem then (ca. 2 million people) were to all suffer death in that war. (= Matt 22:7)



I am actually still confused. So explicitly state/quote the ‘sentence from GC 614.2 that you thought I had in mind.’



As I understand your view, you see this withdrawal of mercy for the entire war period (namely 66-70 A.D.). I actually see this as not the case for this entire war judgement, but like in the 7 Last Plagues, only in the final part, i.e., after Titus became indignant (sometime in 70 A.D.) and proceed to both unmercifully kill the remaining Jews and also deliberately aim to destroy the city. Perhaps as you had said below, you agree with this two-part judgement view...



...however I do not see how this reconciled with your sustainedly expressed view that God is not involved in a judgement at all but that things naturally and independently developed on their own. Under such a view, God cannot be acting to influence Titus to restrain himself, nor have His own angels delve out first 6 plagues (Rev 16:1-16) and even initiated the final one (vs. 17, 18) which is then allowed to be executed by Satan (vs. 19-21/ GC 614.2-615.1)

These last paragraphs were well written in terms of the sentence structure. Much easier to understand, which is appreciated.



I wouldn't say that God intends judgment, but repentance. Judgment occurs only when people refuse to repent, and that judgment is a result of people refusing the protection which God offers them. The "no-more-mercy" stage is when people have made their final decision not to repent.

A key, significant phrase to keep in mind, used by the SOP in the description of the destruction of Jerusalem, is that God was *caused* to remove His protection. What happened was this:

1.God is protecting, showing mercy, urging repentance.
2.While the heart is not completely hardened, this continues.
3.There is simultaneous action going on:
a.God being caused to remove His protection.
b.God continuing to protect.

While the heart is not completely hardened, b>a. At a certain point, after so much resistance to the pleading of the Holy Spirit, a>b, and disaster occurs.

For example:



Anger (or wrath) equates to forsaking/hiding of face, which results in trouble.



This is a very well known text. Couldn't you at least give a hint, like "he who is filthy, let him remain filthy?"

It's certainly not the case that Jesus "greatly wishes that no one would seek it then." That makes no sense. Jesus is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to a knowledge of the truth. He only gives up on people when they give on Him, and that is with no feeling of malice, but a sad acceptance of the choice that has been made, as in His lamentation over Jerusalem.

He would gladly show mercy on whomever he could, but people disqualify themselves from being able to receive mercy by hardening their own hearts. The mercy needed is not mercy to protect against what God will do if you don't what He says, but to protect from the results of disobedience of the law. When a person continues to say, "Leave me alone!," eventually God will do just that, which is His no longer showing mercy, and they suffer the consequences.



I agree with this.



I'll look for it when I can. It's in Ministry of Healing, in the section talking about nature.



Good.



This sounds similar to my thinking.



I'm not following this.



It's not that sin is deserving of death, but that sin results in death. DA 764 makes this clear. It would have had to have been written with many NOTs to be the other way around.

For example, she writes:



This is describing the result of an action, not that death is deserved because of sin.

Again:



Same point. It's not that they deserve that God be a consuming fire to them, but God is what He is by nature; He is the same, the "everlasting burnings" of Isaiah. But the wicked, because of their own actions, cannot abide His presence.

Again:



This doesn't say:



The above paragraph is how many seem to understand the final judgment, but this isn't even close to what was actually written above.



I would say that the GC is necessary to make clear:

a.The truth about God; His character and government.
b.The truth about Satan/sin; his character and government.

That's basically it. Once the truth is seen, there is no longer any reason for God to allow sin to continue, as all sin has ever done is to bring suffering, misery and death. Once all sentient beings understand this, and understand that God is love, and has always acted in the best interested of His creatures, there is no longer any reason for sin or sinners to continue to exist.



Even looking at things from your perspective, I don't see how this would follow. From your perspective, the tree of life would reverse that destructive elements of sin 100%, so people would be immortal, if they had access to the tree of life. God, by removing the tree of life, would allow the destructive elements of sin to occur. This wouldn't show that sin does not have destructive elements to it.



Quoting again from DA 764:



I don't see how any sin would be exempt here.



The Tree of Life would not fix the problems stated just above, in DA 764, which is a character related issue. The Tree of Life does not fix character.



I could just as easily say that your refusal to accept plain SOP statements, such as the chapter "It Is Finished" in "The Desire of Ages" or "The Destruction of Jerusalem" in "The Great Controversy" or Bible statements such as "the sting of death is sin" is what is keeping you from understanding this directly derived Theological Truth.

But I don't think this is accurate. I think it's your view of God's character which prevents you from seeing the truths we're discussing. Since the truths themselves are dealing with God's character, this leads to a Catch 22; i.e. seeing God's character as you do prevents you from interpreting texts which speak of God's character in another light.

However, although we do see things differently, I appreciate your taking the time to explain your views, especially in a more friendly manner, as you have been doing lately. I still haven't gotten completely where you're coming from, which leads to errors in my part at times in correctly representing your thoughts, but I believe I'm getting closer.

Sometimes, even in my “brainstorming responses, as my time only allows for, for this discussion, some things do come out clearer than others, not actually through any special effort on my part. As I have said, proofreading would have made other statements just as clear but I can’t afford that review process.



Though I get your well-meaning attempt here to effectively, “defend” God, I Biblically actually see that it is “judgement” that is still being prominently applicable in such “judgement” cases as it is a blameless part of God’s Character: = His Justice. So when God decides to enter into judgement with someone, though repentance may be, and usually is, a possible outcome in the judgement, indeed there always seems to be a last granted opportunity to repent (= Isa 1:18-20), it is judgement that is the prominent action. Using judgements to seek repentance would make God compel repentance through force.



I Biblically see/understand that from the time when God allowed the Roman armies to approach and surround Jerusalem, indeed as He/Jesus had pointedly specified that it would be the case in judgement (e.g., Matt 22:7; Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-22). The judgement of Jerusalem started with the 66 A.D. siege yet mercy was still extended/demonstrated for the most part of that 4-year war.



Based on what I understand “the face” to symbolically mean/represent in the Bible, indeed as it is being figuratively spoken of in this passage, I see that this “hiding of His Face” involves God not allowing/facilitating a rebellious people/group to “see/understand/recognize/perceive” the things of God that would ‘make for their peace’. That is indeed one of the major reasons why Jesus spoke in parables (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13).



I rather see that it is God’s anger and wrath which leads to this distinctively destructive/detrimental action of Him hiding His face. That is only one manifestation of His anger/wrath, and pointedly when dealing with His former people who had ample opportunity to ‘seek/see His Face’ and thus understand Him and His Ways. (2 Chr 7:14; Hos 5:15; cf. e.g., Psa 24:1-6).

Indeed, especially compared to the access and manifestation in Israel, God’s does hide His face from heathen peoples yet they do not naturally encounter troubles, indeed, as David says, many of them do “flourish” (Psa 92:7)

Ironically it is when/if God would reveal/show His Face to the wicked that they would be liable of immediate judgement just as Israel was whenever it acted like, and even worse than, these heathen nations “in the Face of God”. These heathens would then, like Israel has shown, not necessarily repent with this newly confronted “perception/knowledge” of God, especially if no explicit threat of judgement accompanies this revelation, but would continue to sin, now with knowledge of the Truth, and thus be duly judged. So God’s non-revelation to them, opting rather for this to be done through His People, serves to preserve the lives of these heathens. And if all fails and they never come to a saving knowledge of God and their actions and life had violated clear natural laws (i.e., last 6 commandments), then as David says, God would have “lovingly” allowed them to relatively thrive because ‘this is the only life they’ll ever be able to enjoy’ (Psa 92:7b)



It exegetically actually certain is the case that “Jesus greatly wishes that no one would seek it then.” I had discussed that exegetical point earlier in this thread, in a discussion with Mountain Man. (See here Post #131708 and here Post #131748) and others. Perhaps you did not read it, or forgot it. It is from there that I derive the Theological “wishes” notion.

For me, it is such exhaustively comprehensive exegesis that set/determine my Theological Views/Understandings. So to validly object to my view here, you’ll have to directly engage those founding exegetical points.



As God directly does most of actions of judgement in the Bible (and I actually see not valid reason not to say ‘“all” except for the final portion of Jerusalem’s destruction), then it would not be logical for His mercy not to be ‘a protection against what He will do if [since] you don't [didn’t] do what He says/had said’. Mercy is indeed always for a due punishment which is actually the result of disobedience, whether direct or indirect | active or passive | engendered or natural.



I do not leave it beyond the feasibility of God, to grant mercy for genuine repentance during that time, but since He has been making sure that the work of the Gospel (which includes the Three Angels Message) will be fully and actually done/finished by then, everyone would have had a clear knowledge of what God’s will and the Truth is by then. That is indeed another reason why I see that God will not allow Final Events to unravel, as they will be when the end is to occur, until this Warning and Instructing work is first actually and properly done/finished. Then Rev 22:11 will indeed be able to transpire as prophesied and any plea for mercy then will justly not be granted.



That book reference should have helped to relocate it, but as “orbit” is apparently not an explicit keyword, it doesn’t help me at all, also not being familiar at all with that statement. Awaiting your “relocating”!



Don’t “over-understate/understand” this statement of mine, as I suspect you may here, based on matching past occurrences. I always understood that natural disasters were both prevented and allowed as God saw fit. Yet I still see that He uses nature to bring about certain judgement, and not always in a “natural way”. E.g., the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not ‘“naturally” by a nearby volcano that ‘it just happened’ was supposed to erupt at that very time when judgement was due, but an active and direct working of God from heaven/space-borne source.



I have had no problem with God ‘withdrawing His protection’ to let a judgement occur. In regards to organic/natural results, this I see as a secondary way in which God effectuates His judgements when it indeed is so naturally possible/timely. I have just had a categorical problem with you claiming that this type of judgement applies to every single judgement mentioned in the Bible as this goes against clear and explicit Biblical exegesis and EGW herself never made that claimed or even made such indications in her relating of Biblical judgements. So also, e.g., where you see her ‘protection withdrawal’ for the fiery serpents to mean ‘God was not involved in that judgement” I don’t see claim in her account nor paramountly, exegetically, in the Biblical text. Quite to the contrary. And for me, if the SOP was to seemingly be opposing the Bible, as with ‘God’s heart hardening of Pharaoh’ then I go by what the Bible is revealing.



The succinct indicative summary, which you can use to reread that paragraph, which is from the larger context of what I understand with this issue, is: ‘The full life of rebellion of the sinner is what self-inflictingly ends up killing him barring no intervention by God and not a mere presence/commitance of sin. And for sin to be self-combustible in the presence of God, that fully grown sinfulness would have to be developed. It indeed would then be a stage where the sin is being done in full knowledge of its sinfulness and thus God’s mercy would not be able to prevent this immediate destruction. For God to have done this immediately with Lucifer would have entailed that God would have outrightly “passed over” the Merciful aspect of His Character. Though this is something that He Righteously, Justly can and could have done. (Exod 33:19). But the everlasting question that would have lingeringly remained would be: Was that fair? Even, objectively-speaking, was it “deserved”’?.



I’ll grant you that EGW does not say “deserved” in that passage, but I am not limiting my understanding of the GC to only this statement of hers, but to all that she says that contribute to this understanding. And the Tree of Life Issue and that sinners could live forever is from where I get and make this “deserved” qualification. SO I do see this as being underlyingly implied in those GC 764 statements.



I more widely/deeply see/understand that this “GC Truth” cannot be conclusively seen without also justifying why God barred access to the Tree of Life, and thus perpetual Life, to people who chose not to live according His Laws, particularly, as it was more pointedly brought to the GC floor, the first 3 Commandments, and since the formation of the Remnant Church, the Fourth Commandments. Indeed the last 6 Commandments are rather quite explanatory, especially by now after 6000 years of human “demonstration/experience”.



Again we differ in that you see sin as being “organically” destructive. I Biblically see it as being something that is so contrary to the character of God that He can choose/allows for it and the sinner to be destroyed when in His presence. Yet that does not necessarily have to be the case. As Gen 3:22 indicates a sinner can live forever with the fruit of Life. You are not actually/properly engaging that Biblical and SOP fact in your view. I understand that the Fruit of Life would prevent/heal any harmful/detrimental effect that a sinful psyche (=character) would cause the human body produce.

So my view is that sin must be shown to be a completely spurious alternative, not only that it will most likely result in a miserable life, particularly emotionally, even including non-health related deaths, but it will ultimately, surely also come to infringe upon the happiness and freedom of those who do not want to subscribe to it. And furthermore, God would have to go completely against His Character and actually “sponsor” and “accommodate” it and sinners.



As I say, some sins would take much longer than others to result in producing natural, or even, forced deaths (e.g, vexatiously killing someone for having lied to you and embarrassed you). Then there is also the issue of ‘God presence’ here. God could have made it that sinners were banished in a remote world away from His presence, indeed just like the circumstances for this Planet in Rebellion.

So while a Last man/tribe/clan scenario would likely play out with ‘eternal sinners’, God wants to demonstrate that it is not even worth it to take a risk, affecting everyone, with an ‘immortalizing of sin’, even if for a long while, in a wishful hope that this would not ultimately occur.



Of course the Tree of Life does not fix character (= the sinner’s sinful “psyche”). I indeed don’t believe so, but that is, as I Biblically wholly understand it here, not actually a part of the issue of sin and perpetual life. The tree of Life would prevent this sinful psyche to produce natural deadly results/consequence in one’s body and also in nature.



You certainly, especially freely, could. But/So the real issue here is can you (truly) Biblically substantiate what you are claiming!


As I said above, my view of Theological Views of God’s is set/determined by what the Bible, and SOP (when it is proven valid) fully/comprehensively/exhaustively teach. As I can easily substantiate, you patently do not include all pertinent/contributive points in forming your views. That is the case with the Plagues, the War in Heave, God’s Love of the Righteous vs.. the Sinners; God’s method of judgements. Jesus is also partially upheld by this selective, one-sided approach/methodology of yours.



Succinctly said, believe me, the only reason for this is that I have learned to ‘serenely accept the things that I obviously/clearly will not change’ with you, however Biblically, logically and self-evidently justified and required they are. And since this is all just resulting in taking more of my time from me to have to continue to deal with things that should have been conclusively settled a long time ago, I am also taking the necessary measures so that my time and schedule is actually not detrimentally disrupted. Perhaps one day you “come around” and, at the very least, truly and properly involve Biblical Exegesis in your understandings, as you, technically-speaking, can, and should, do being a Seminarian.

I couldn't follow this last paragraph.

Regarding the above, a couple of questions come to mind. One if if you believe that God executed His Son through capital punishment. The other question is why you see the consuming fire statements to be figurative.

Hopefully I'll get to more later.

I see the cross as more of an indication as to the character of the final destruction.



This looks to be a big difference we have. You appear to view sin is primarily, or only, a physical problem, where I see it as a spiritual problem. If sin were only a physical problem, then the tree of life could conceivably fix that, so I can see, given this presupposition, why you would think that a sinner could live eternally. Indeed, above, you only mention body/health as what needs to be “therapeutically maintained."

I see that the deeper issues of sin, the issues which cause death, have to due with the mind and the soul. This is what DA 764 is getting at, where it brings out that the wicked form characters so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire, and that His glory (which is His character) destroys them. How does it destroy them? The following helps to understand how:



None of this is anything the Tree of Life can fix. The problem is one of character, as the above points out. Note:



Again, this is not something the Tree of Life can fix. Also:



What is purity, holiness and peace to the wicked? It's "torture." Imagine "peace"(!) being torture! But such is the effect of sin.

Going back to the chapter "It Is Finished" for a moment, we see in this chapter, which deals with the effects of Christ's death on the cross, perhaps the most detailed explanation as to the principles involved in the destruction of the wicked. I don't think this is coincidence. I don't think we can understand the destruction of the wicked without understanding the cross.

I'm not following your point here. My point was this:



This seems quite clear to me.



This is hard to follow. I understood this part:



And I agree with this characterization of my understanding. I didn't understand your statement, however, other than that I take it you disagree.

Here's the statement from "The Ministry of Healing" I was thinking of:





The context of our discussion here is the blessings that God provides to the wicked. Your statement seemed to be indicating that God's blessings to the wicked were very limited, including only the "basic necessity type."

I pointed out that the thousands of dangers from which God protects us, all of them unseen, included the wicked. You included this as a part of the "basic necessity type," which would have you agreeing with me in terms of what God is including in terms of blessing the wicked, it seems to me, just that you apply to them what appears to me to be an odd title.

As to what these thousand blessings included, this is the context:





I don't know what you're referring to here. It seems to me the dangers being referred to are like those in Job.

I think God is involved in judgments, and these judgements are as described here:





No mercy means God permitted Satan to do his will? E.g.



So "no mercy" was when this state was reached. Before this state, God had not been caused to remove His protection, so mercy was still being applied. It seems pretty clear that this is what was happening here, correct?

So, to related this to final plagues, God, in the first 6 plagues, was still protecting, to differing degrees, but when the 7th arrives, He has removed His protection completely; is this the idea?

I have a couple of discussion general questions for you Tom:

(1) Why do you selectively respond to some parts of a post and not to its other parts? Time of course is not the issue here since you do respond to some parts. My question is why not the other parts instead? Particularly those which you manifestly realized have disproved your previous objections.

(2) Do you still think that your prior objections are still right despite not having responding to the responses that disprove them?