Luke 12
4 ""I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do.
5 ""But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!

Rev 14
9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, ""If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,

10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy ones AND in the presence of the Lamb.
11 ""And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.''
[/quote]

Tom asks



The lake of fire is manufactured event -- from first to last.

Nothing in nature causes the dead to come to life at the end of 1000 years.

Nothing in nature causes the living to be judged at the great white throne judgment - by the Law of God.

Nohting in nature causes the earth to suddenly become a motlen mass of fire across the entire surface at the exact moment the judgment scene ends.

Nothing in nature causes the wicked to suffer in proportion to their deeds and their knowledge (Luke 12:47-48).

Nothing in nature causes Satan to remain powerless to leave the scene of fire -

Nothing in nature causes fire to come from within Satan and consume him.

It is all supernatural.

But if God wanted to absentmindedly "let" something happen - he could simply "not provide life" to the wicked instantly since Col 1 says he is the one who causes all things to hold together. But that is not the way the Bible says it ends.

in Christ,

Bob

I'm not understanding all the references to "nature." The idea that nature causes anything to happen hasn't been suggested. What's been discussed is whether certain things happen as a consequence or are "manufactured" (a nice term; I've used "arbitrarily," but that's misunderstood as pejorative).

The certain things I'm referencing have to do with the suffering and death of the wicked. The SOP calls their death "the inevitable result of sin" and points out that had God "left" Satan to reap the consequences of his actions, he would have perished. So I believe from this that death is not something "manufactured," but that sin has death wrapped inside of it (to use Waggoner's description).

A couple of questions:

Are you of the persuasion that God supernaturally burns people alive in this manufactured fire in order to make them pay for their sins?

Do you think we should be afraid of God? (because of what He will do to us if we don't do what He says)

The logic, Tom, is sound. Thomas Edison proved time after time that certain elements didn’t result in a suitable light bulb because it didn’t work. When something cannot be done it serves as proof that it cannot be done. Please explain to me why you disagree with the idea that Jesus could not have, while burdened with sinful flesh, stand on Mars without a special space suit.


Tom, I’m beginning to think you really do believe that the firelight radiating from God’s physical being would not cause sinful flesh to incinerate. Do you believe the same thing about the light radiating from Moses’ face, that is, that it wouldn’t have caused anyone physical harm to look upon it?


Here she makes it clear the Jews had reason to fear that the “burning glory of his presence” would burn them up like rubbish in an incinerator. When Jesus returns, the “burning glory of his presence” will cause the rubbish of the earth to burn up. The “whole earth shall be ablaze with the terrible light of His presence.” It “shall cause the elements to melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” Obviously, then, the firelight radiating from God causes things to be literally burned up.

No, it's not! It's not even close.

Your logic is that if something did not happen, that is proof that it could not happen. There are all sorts of things which did not happen, but could have happened. Taken to its logical conclusion, your assertion would lead to the absurdity that nothing can ever happen because anything that happens for the first time is something which had never happened before, and if the fact that something has not happened is evidence that it cannot, then nothing can happen, since anything that happens must at some point happen for the first time.

Your argument is that Christ would have been incinerated had He been in the direct presence of God. Your "proof" is that He was never in the direct presence of God. I could just as well argue that Christ would have been turned into jelly beans had He been in the presence of God, the proof being that He was never in the direct presence of God.

I don't understand how you could think this is a sound argument.

God is not the only one who knows He never uses force or violence to punish sinners. I also believe it. You agree with me that the outcome is the same whether God withdraws and allows 1) the pent up forces of nature to kill sinners, or 2) the devil to manipulate the forces of nature to kill sinners. In either case, sinners are killed by the forces of nature. Neither you nor I nor anyone else would be able to tell the difference.

In fact, when was the last time you got up in church and said something to the effect, “Yesterday God withdrew His protection and allowed a tornado to kill 6 people in Douglas County”? Unless God Himself told you otherwise, I suspect you would say, “Yesterday Satan manipulated the forces of nature and killed 6 people in Douglas County with a tornado”. I doubt you would publicly qualify this statement by adding, “Of course we know God is the one who allowed the devil to kill those people”. Am I right?


No you don’t, Tom. You have made it clear that God withdraws His protection and allows evil men and angels to harm good and innocent people (i.e. rape, abduction, murder, etc). You justify allowing the exercise of such horrendous force and violence by saying, “God must permit Satan to demonstrate the principles of his government”. And then you turn around and insist that God is innocent, that allowing it to happen is not the same thing as causing it to happen, which, of course, is technically true, but in a court of law He would be charged with negligence and dereliction of duty and sentenced to prison.


Above she wrote, “Such do not always realize that judgments are from God.” You seem to be such a person, Tom. “Men flatter themselves that God is too good to punish the transgressor.” (PP 420)


What do you understand about it? The promises of God in Deut. 28 do not include Him allowing the types of things that happened to Job. In fact, they emphatically promise such things will not happen. But according to you, God must permit evil men and angels to harm good and innocent people because otherwise Satan would be unable to demonstrate the principles of his government. But obviously this idea is horribly wrong because otherwise God wouldn’t promise to prevent it.


Thank you for qualifying your interpretation of Ellen’s insight. Before you argued that Jesus demonstrated all there is to know about God’s character and kingdom; but now you are saying He didn’t necessarily demonstrate everything, that His actions and words combined reflect and reveal everything there is to know about God. I am more inclined to agree this is what Ellen had in mind, with one notable exceptions – Jesus never even hinted at commanding one of His leaders to kill sinners like God commanded Moses to kill sinners.


No you haven’t, Tom. You have repeatedly dodged addressing the question as to why God commanded Moses to kill sinners. Your humane hunter story doesn’t even close to addressing the core of the issue. The closest you’ve come to it is to imply God was compelled to act uncharacteristically because of the hardness of the Jews. But the story clearly shows the Jews were uncertain what to do so they told Moses to inquire of God. Clearly they were not eager to kill them. They wanted to please God.


Tom, you have had to qualify your interpretation of her insight to mean Jesus used a combination of words and actions to reveal everything there is to know about God. You usually misquote her, too, by leaving out the phrase “needs to know or”. You never misquote her by saying, “All that man needs to know about God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” The reason you never misquote her in this way is because it agrees with my understanding.


Once again you have misquoted her in an awkward attempt to refute the obvious fact Jesus never even hinted at commanding people to kill sinners like God commanded Moses to kill sinners.


No, Tom, you’ve been saying God simply stops preventing them from imploding upon themselves and killing sinners in the process. You have been vehemently arguing against the idea that God employs them. You are, of course, entitled to change your mind.


The idea that God must regulate the imploding forces of nature to prevent them from causing more damage than He is willing to tolerate, makes it clear that the actual outcome is in accordance with His will and desire; otherwise, the outcome would be in violation of His will and desire. The actual outcome, therefore, is the direct result of a combination of natural and supernatural forces, namely, 1) God withdrawing His protection and allowing the pent up forces of nature to implode upon itself, and 2) God actively regulating those forces so that the death and destruction it causes do not exceed what He is willing to tolerate. It is similar to a policeman regulating the pressure of a fire hose so as to not cause more harm to a mob than the law is willing to tolerate. It is referred to as “justified force”.


That was the point, Tom. Above I wrote, “Actually, since I'm the one who is interested in how your comment plays out in the passage I posted above . . . it seems reasonable for you to at least humor my request.” The point of my request was for you to demonstrate how your point plays out in the passage I posted.

You wrote, “The fact that two results are the same does not mean the causes are the same.” Please explain how the causes and results she describes in the passage posted above (3SG 79-81) differ from the causes and results that occur when God allows Satan to use fire and water to kill people and to destroy the earth.


So, I hear you saying it is essentially the same thing whether God or Satan does something that results in the forces of nature killing sinners and destroying the earth. If so, what, then, did you mean when you wrote, “The only difference is what causes the destruction . . .” This seems to imply a significant difference, so much so that the two can hardly be seen as only slightly different.

M: Regarding your comments on logic, please consider the following observations. The fact Jesus could not have appeared in the unveiled presence of God in sinful flesh without being burned up is based on the following facts:


Here she makes it clear the Jews had reason to fear that the “burning glory of his presence” would burn them up like rubbish in an incinerator. When Jesus returns, the “burning glory of his presence” will cause the rubbish of the earth to burn up. The “whole earth shall be ablaze with the terrible light of His presence.” It “shall cause the elements to melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” Obviously, then, the firelight radiating from God causes things to be literally burned up.

1. Your idea overlooks the fact God could have won the GC without A&E falling, that it wasn't necessary for them to fall.

2. Your idea overlooks what God promised in Deut. 28:1-14, that He would protect them from all harm.

3. Your idea overlooks the fact God regularly intervenes and forcibly prevents evil men and angels from harming good and innocent people without infringing upon their rights and freedoms.

I believe the reason God permits evil men and angels to harm good and innocent people is that such treatment serves to grow the saints spiritually. Like other trials, which serve as God's "workmen" to grow people spiritually, the purpose is to foster and nurture righteous traits of character unto God's honor and glory.

I agree.


Is this really how you interpret 3SG 79-81?

The part that I comment on, yes (regarding God's causing these elements to ignite, etc.). God in mercy has given energy supplies to humans. I'm pretty sure she comments on this, in the context of man's having diminished because of the Flood.

Yes. Just as He had Christ supernaturally setup to pay for "our sins" as our "Atoning Sacrifice" 1John 2:2 NIV.

Exact same concept.

One can argue that disconnection from the source of life results in death. But that is not what you see when God supernaturally raises the wicked dead, the orchestrates the Great White throne Judgment - and then the Lake of Fire with the special "element" that "He who knew his masters will and yet did deeds worthy of flogging will receive many lashes" Luke 12



God deliberately describes His own work so as not to 'put a nice face on it'



10The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb

11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Is this the way to say "don't worry it will be ok if you don't go to heaven-- you just won't be around to suffer from your own mistakes and sin -- that's all" - I think we all agree it is not.

Is this how to say "they will just so happen to be standing right where the earth wants to spew fire and brimstone for some reason - and God can not get them to budge off of that stance"?? I think we all agree it is not.

What is the obvious purpose in the author - using this wording?

in Christ,

Bob