About what? If you're talking about GC 536 applying to your view, I specifically asked you if you agreed with the view described in GC 635, 636 apart from duration, and you said you did. I've been very careful each time I've referred to this passage to say that this is your view *except for the duration*. You agreed with this in the past, and nothing you've said so far disagrees with this, as the only point you've disagreed with, to date, on this thread is with the duration aspect.



I was just taking your answer to my direct question at face value.



If I asked you a direct question, such as, "Do you agree that this represents your view, except for the duration" and you answer that you do, how am I being unfair?

If you disagree with my characterization, just tell me what part of the description of GC 635, 636, other than duration, that you disagree with, and I'll include that in any future comments I make.



The literal fire causes them pain? How would that fit with DA 764? Or DA 108?



They would hardly feel being burned alive? This can't possibly be true. For one thing, the wicked do not have the agony of soul regarding sin that Jesus Christ had on the cross because Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, and as One who never sinned, had a far greater capacity for sin than a wicked person would have. Secondly, crucifixion, as bad as that is, would not compare to being burned alive by molten lava (or something similar), something which would kill a human being in a matter of seconds.

Regarding which fire is literal and which is symbolic, I believe the fire which causes the soul anguish of the wicked is symbolic, as per DA 764 and DA 108. I believe that there will be a literal fire which will cleanse the earth.

Regarding this comment:



I don't believe this at all. That is, the reason you hold the view you have is not because of the passage in question. It's much more deep-seated than that (assuming that's a word). If one took away this passage, you'd still hold to the view you hold, because of the way you perceive God to be. This isn't something which can be changed by considering a single passage. It's an issue of paradigm.

I'll see if I can write a post to give an example of this.

Here's an example of how two different paradigms can effect our view of what's going on in a passage:



This brings out a few things:

1.We should not avenge ourselves.
2.Vengeance is the Lord's, who will repay.
3.Therefore if our enemy is hungry, we should feed him.
4.This heaps coals of fire on his head.
5.Evil will be overcome with good.

Here's one way of interpreting this.

Because God will give the wicked their comeuppance, we should be patient, and treat the wicked kindly, letting God be the hit guy, knowing that eventually they'll get what's coming to them. We leave God to do the avenging.

Now the key point in this way of looking at things is that we act differently than God does. We are kind and loving in our treatment of the wicked, whereas God is anything but.

Here's another way of interpreting the passage.

God will repay His enemies by returning good for evil, which will heap coals of fire upon their head, so we should do the same thing. We should love our enemies, just as God does, returning good for evil, just as God does.

In this view, we do not act differently than God does, but similarly, and for the same reason.

Note that treating our enemies with agape heaps coals of fire on their head. This is what happens in the final judgment.

This principle is described here:



And here:



The wicked, by ruining their own character, had made it so any revelation of God's character, which is agape, destroys them. Agape cannot be shrouded forever. When it is fully revealed, evil is overcome with good, and heaps of coal are heaped on the head of God's enemies. The penalty of the law is visited. God's wrath is appeased. Justice is satisfied. All of these things happen when agape is no long shrouded, when God's character is laid open for all to see.

I've recreated the dialog above. I thought I was addressing your question. Please explain to me where I detoured. Thank you.

You made this unsavory comment in response to Bob's list of questions. I, for one, see nothing schizophrenic about the way Bob harmonizes the Bible and the SOP descriptions of hellfire and brimstone and the lake of fire.

Tom, you need to listen to what I'm saying here. No matter you think I believe or what you think I've said about the GC 535 quote in the past, listen to me now. I'm telling you what I believe. Please listen to me. Ellen describes a view of hellfire on page 535 that is so far from the truth that there is no way I can compare it with her description of the lake of fire on pages 672 and 673.


As I have explained above you cannot do this in all fairness.


I assume you mean page 535. I disagree with all of it.


They're talking about two different sources of fire.


Are they burned alive? Or, are they burned to ashes after they die?


According to Ellen's description in GC 672, 673 do you think the literal fire comes after all the sinners are dead? Please quote from this passage to answer my question. Thank you.


Throughout the Bible God employed the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. He destroyed two cities full of sinners with fire and brimstone. They were burned alive. This is true whether we use your view to explain how He did it or mine. He also used fire to kill Nadab and Abihu, the people who complained, and the 250 priests who sided with Korah. All of them were burned alive.

"Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." Burned alive.

"And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD." Burned alive.

"And [when] the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard [it]; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed [them that were] in the uttermost parts of the camp." Burned alive.

"And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense." Burned alive.

Please point to me on pages 672 and 673 of the GC the fire you are talking about. For example, does the following description speak about the fire you described above: "The earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire"? If not, then please point it out to me. Thank you.

It appears you missed the point. The point is that Bob was emphasizing what certain phrases meant "in the text." My point was that "in the text" the phrases had to conform with what Ellen White said about the judgment of the wicked elsewhere. Otherwise she would be speaking at times with one paradigm in her head, and at other times with another, which is something a schizophrenic person would do. Assuming she wasn't schizophrenic, the phrases "in the text" mean what they mean elsewhere in her writings (or, better yet, the meaning conveyed by these phrases "in the text" is the same as the meaning conveyed on this subject elsewhere in her writings).

Different in some way other than duration? Previously you said not. If you now wish to say it's different, that's fine. Just tell me how.



I ask you a specific question, and you answer the question, and I can't in fairness accept your answer to my question? That's an odd thing to assert. Why not?



They are not burned alive by literal fire. Yes, they are burned to ashes after they are already dead.



Please quote from the passage I've cited from DA 108 where you think the fire that kills the wicked is literal.

Regarding your response to the following:



In nothing you said was the issue of God's actively working, using His supernatural power to do so, to keep the wicked alive so they could suffer longer the inexpressible anguish and suffering that being burned alive would cause.

Neither you nor Bob have answered my question as to how you think God is capable of the things you are suggesting He will do.

Here's an example of my question. Suppose someone came up with some interpretation of the SOP which had God doing something you regarded as immoral, like, for example, cursing (I'm assuming you would consider this something impossible for God to do, because of His character). You would reject the view out of hand, because you reject that God is incapable of doing such a thing (i.e. curse). So before you even considered the SOP text which supposedly said this, you would know the asserted conclusion couldn't possibly be true.

So why don't you reject the view that God would use His supernatural power to extend the lives of people to cause them further pain by burning them alive? Why do you think God is capable of such a thing?

it appears rather self-evident to me........

well, first off where did tom present the "catholic" view since that was the post i was referring to. that is the right number since you found it, right?


this refers to both toms ellen white statements and your ellen white statements. perhaps you could explain how that got confused so i can try to avoid that in the future.......


second was in response to bobryan, it was right below his comment.

The view Ellen described in the passages Tom posted is the Catholic view of hell. But as Tom pointed out most Protestants hold to this view as well. My bad. I should have said so. The origin of the view is Catholic.


That is exactly what I assumed in my initial response. I tried to demonstrate that, No, one does not cancel out the other, and that, No, the different quotes are not pieces of the same puzzle. So apparently we weren't talking past each other. At any rate, do you agree with my assessment of the quotes? If not, please explain.