Actually you have not gone through the exercise of taking these extremely disconfirming texts and exegeting them to show that - or to point out that -- it is in fact organic.

But your recent statements that it might be interesting to cover all the manufactured and architected solutions we see in those texts and call it all "organic" as if to say 'well naturally God reveals himself in flaming fire dealing out retribution" once wickedness reaches a certain point -- as if 'organic' and supernatural intervention are to be re-cast as the same concept.




A. that is not correct - 763-764 does not say that Christ does nothing to cause the wicked to be slain at His coming "Whom the Lord will destroy by the brightness of His coming" 2Thess 2:8 .

B. that is not a Bible text

C. that leaves you without a Bible response to 2Thess 1 "revealedin flaming fire dealing out retribution" and for Rev 19 "the REST were slain by the sword that comes from His Mouth".

in Christ,

Bob

The argument is that God's ACT in DESTROYING them is not arbitrary (though some have imagined it that way) it is simply the Just Act of God in "dealing out retribution in flaming" fire to those who do not obey the Gospel -- they chose to disobey.

But of course even this is not the final destroying act of God for He will raise these same people YET AGAIN at the end of the 1000 years so that they can experience the 2nd death and thus complete what Ellen White calls "paying the full penalty" of the debt of sin owed.

But as for that 2nd coming event you have referenced -- we have "yet again" the 2Thess 1 text so often mentioned here - but never actually responded to -

I believe there are some in Adventism for whom the solution to the texts above is "never quote them" so that an entirely different POV can be promoted that is not compatible with the actual details of the text.

Which is why I keep asking that this discussion finally and "at last" come down to the "inconvenient details" involved in exegeting these texts some "other way" than what they clearly say - as if it is even possible.

in Christ,

Bob

MM, Regarding #108912, you were the one who brought up SC 21 in response to DA 480. What did you have in mind?

(so you don't necessarily have to go back to the post to look, this is in regards to fear of punishment)

Since we were recently at the point of discussing the wrath of God visited in the event of the second Coming - and DA 763 was mentioned -- I thought it might be helpful to see if the Great Controversy said anything at all about the 2nd coming.

Here we see "the something" that Christ does in this His act of vengence and wrath at the 2nd coming.

======================================
Great Controversy 656

"A noise shall come even to the ends of the earth; for the Lord hath a controversy with the nations, He will plead with all flesh; He will give them that are wicked to the sword." Jeremiah 25:31. For six thousand years the great controversy has been in progress; the Son of God and His heavenly messengers have been in conflict with the power of the evil one, to warn, enlighten, and save the children of men. Now all have made their decisions; the wicked have fully united with Satan in his warfare against God. The time has come for God to vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. Now the controversy is not alone with Satan, but with men. "The Lord hath a controversy with the nations;" "He will give them that are wicked to the sword." {GC 656.1}

The mark of deliverance has been set upon those "that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done." Now the angel of death goes forth, represented in Ezekiel's vision by the men with the slaughtering weapons, to whom the command is given: "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary." Says the prophet: "They began at the ancient men which were before the house." Ezekiel 9:1-6. The work of destruction begins among those who have professed to be the spiritual guardians of the people. The false watchmen are the first to fall. There are none to pity or to spare. Men, women, maidens, and little children perish together. {GC 656.2}
"The Lord cometh out of His place to punish the inhabitants
657
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}

At the coming of Christ the wicked are blotted from the face of the whole earth--consumed with the spirit of His mouth and destroyed by the brightness of His glory. Christ takes His people to the City of God, and the earth is emptied of its inhabitants. "Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof." "The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the Lord hath spoken this word." "Because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned." Isaiah 24:1, 3, 5, 6. {GC 657.1}

The whole earth appears like a desolate wilderness. The ruins of cities and villages destroyed by the earthquake, uprooted trees, ragged rocks thrown out by the sea or torn out of the earth itself, are scattered over its surface, while vast caverns mark the spot where the mountains have been rent from their foundations.
658
{GC 657.2}


================================================

Among the many "details" to note in the quote above is the term "unmingled wrath" -- do you recall what it is that wrath is "not mingled" with in this case?

in Christ,

Bob

I don't see a need for reconciliation. I would ask you the same question: how would you reconcile your view with hers?



This hasn't been suggested.

I think the crux of the matter comes down to whether we view justice as retributive or restorative/redemptive. You write:



This is on the right track! We can't say that one should show mercy if it is deserved, since, by definition, mercy is not deserved, but to emphasize if it "serves the community well" is exactly right. As I've been saying, justice has to do with restoring the covenant community to shalom, which is in harmony with what you just said.

So, viewing justice as restorative, we ask the question, "When is justice satisfied"? The answer is clear: When things are set right. How are men set right with God?



By the revelation of God. So we see the heart of justice is the revelation of God.

This is a new thought for me. Thanks for spurring me on to it.

Regarding justice and mercy being set against one another, one way of thinking about it is two sides of the same coin. Justice and mercy are not the same thing, but they work together. Justice is administered by mercy. Over and over in Scripture we see justice expressed in terms of taking care of the needy, in both testaments.

Regarding #108925, you didn't in the slightest acknowledge or address any of the points I made. I'm talking about the post which addresses this:



You're not considering the context or the intent of DA 764. It's not at all presenting the idea you are suggesting, but diametrically arguing against it, which is clear if one considers what is written there.

in the case of the wicked in the lake of fire - they are neither redeemed nor restored by their being "tormented in fire and brimstone" - to use God's Words. (And by that I mean Christ of course).

in Christ,

Bob

I beg to differ "Men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - SPOKE FROM GOD" 2Peter 1:21

Ellen White argue "THUS it is not the word of MEN but the Word of GOD"




Really? How so?



It will be most interesting to see you exegete the phrase in 2Thess 1 -- using Romans 12.

you may want to take your time with that - getting it right.

I wait patiently.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, I've asked you several times where you learned exegesis. You use the word, but seem to have no concept in regards to what exegetical methodology is. Did you study this somewhere, like at a seminary?



I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. It sounds like you're operating from the standpoint that what you believe must be true and arguing against labeling again, as opposed to considering that your perspective as to what is happening may be wrong.



DA 764 starts by quoting Malachi, which deals with the destruction of the wicked, and explains the meaning of this text. She explains that the wicked are destroyed by their own choice, as opposed to something God (or Christ) does to them.

Just as Ty points out, we are inclined to ask God why He would kill us, when God asks, "Why will you die." Ty's thoughts are the same as Ellen White's in DA 764.



What's not?



Are you suggesting that Christ has a literal sword in His mouth, and that's what slays the wicked? They're chopped in pieces by a sword?

You're operating from a paradigm which has sin as something which is innocuous. Sinners only die because God kills them. To counteract this, a number of Bible texts were presented. "Sin, when it is finished, brings forth death." "The soul that sins shall die." "The sting of death is sin." "Sin pages its wages: death." Or, to quote Ellen White, death is "the inevitable result of sin." She also says that Satan is the "author of sin and all its results."

Putting these together, we see that death is not something caused by God, but by sin. Once we grasp this key, the rest falls into place.

Retribution is not something arbitrarily imposed upon those who sin ("arbitrary" as in "manufactured," not "capricious"), but it the payback inherent in their own actions. As the SOP puts it, had God left Satan to reap the full result of his sin, he would have perished. Why? Because this is what sin does; it kills people.

The way Waggoner put it is that sin has death wrapped up in it.

To quote from Scripture:



Notice the admonition to feed your enemy if he is hungry, to give him something to drink if he is thirsty. Note what this does. It heaps burning coals on his head. Why? For the reasons that Ty pointed out. Sin has an impact on the conscience. Returning good for evil leads to the destruction of the evil one, if he does not repent. Evil is overcome by good.

This is the way God works. He overcomes evil with good. He loves his enemies, and returns their hatred with love. Ask Christ admonished, He turns the other cheek and walks the second mile. *This is how God destroys the wicked. This is His retribution.*

Why? Because good is more powerful than evil. Love is more powerful than hate.

God has no need to burn alive those who oppose Him. What could possibly be gained by such a deed?

Although I've asked you several times now, you haven't answered my question as to how you think God is capable of such a deed.

Let's consider another example of what I'm asking. I'm guessing you will agree with me that God doesn't lie. Yet we read in 1st Kings 22 that God sent a lying spirit to Ahab. So should we conclude from this that God lies? We would reject such a conclusion because we know that God does not lie.

Here's another example. Let's say someone interpreted some text to say that God or Christ did some immoral thing. It could be anything, but say had an impure thought. We would reject such a conclusion because we know that God is not capable of having impure thoughts.

Now let's consider another example. Let's say someone interpreted some text to have God acting in a cruel manner, torturing someone. We would reject such an interpretation. Why? Because God is not capable of cruelty or of torture.

God is not immoral. You're suggestion that God will burn people alive with fire, supernaturally extending their lives so the torture can be continued must be rejected.