Considering Jesus' death on the cross is a good way to go. You remember how Jesus said, "My heart melts like wax"? This is due to the fire that was burning Him. This isn't a literal fire, but the fire represents what was happening to Christ, what He felt like. The pain was due to feeling a relationship breaking up. We humans are emotional, social beings, and the breaking up of a close personal relationship is extremely painful.



How does the fire engulf the earth without engulfing them? Previously you spoke of flames covering the wicked, so I guess you've changed how you conceptualize this. Are thinking more in terms of the wicked's being roasted by fire, like on a spit?

observations for the reader.

1. You can not answer a question about a "detail" in GC 672 regarding the "armies" of men and the "fury of God" as mentioned in that text - by avoiding the text or by going to some OTHER passage that makes no mention at all about the "fury of God" connected to the "armies of men".

2. You can not answer the "in the text" question about suffering "The full penalty of sin in the fires" detail found IN GC 672 by avoiding GC 672 entirely and going to other passages that do NOT mention that detail at all.

4. You can not address the DETAIL about "Suffer for many days" found IN GC 672 by faithfully AVOIDING GC 672-673 and then bringing up other passages that make no mention at ALL about "suffering for many days" in the Lake of Fire.


... etc.

In other words you can not expand on and explain the details found in the content and context for GC672 by simply avoding the pages altogether and "talking about other details instead".

Please consider that when reading through and then answering these questions carefully "from the text" of GC 672-673

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

Questions for the reader.

1. What does the phrase “His fury upon all their armies” refer too in the text above”?
2. What does the phrase “Suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires” refer to – in the text above?
3. Is it the same as the phrase above “The full penalty of the LAW has been visited ”??
4. When the text speaks of those who “suffer for many days” does this mean all or just some?
5. When the text says that by comparison “he is still to live and suffer on” after all others have perished… is that fair?
6. In the text the argument is made that in this way “the demands of justice have been met” is that really true as you see it?
7. In the text above when it is said that ”punishment is far greater” for Satan than for others suffering there – are ALL punished??



in Christ,

Bob

It means that finding a sentence or two reference about the END of the Lake of fire event -- the fact that the wicked are wiped out -- is not a funny kinda "replacement" for the paragraphs and pages of DETAIL found IN GC 672-673 describing it in much more complete terms.

It is simply a nice way to "talk about something else instead" as almost a "What if we did not have those GC 672-673 details" kind of solution. Which is truly and odd way to solve the problem.

in Christ,

Bob

You absolutely have to consider other texts which deal with the "fury of God" in order to understand it. To just consider one text in isolation is sheer folly, which is in accordance with the counsel of the SOP.



Nor can you. In order to understand what "the full penalty of sin" is, we *must* consider what the author has written elsewhere. In DA 764, we learn this is death (the second death).

DA 764 mentions the details in great detail. So does GC 541-543. These passages are dealing directly with the subject of the judgment.

We have counsel to consider all that has been written on the subject. I'm not understanding your reluctance to do so. There's absolutely no counsel endorsing the methodology you are suggesting, which is to consider the text of one passage in isolation to others.



What happened to 3.?

Sure one can. The important point in considering other passages is the subject matter, not that some particular detail is mentioned. DA 764 and GC 541-543 is dealing with the judgment; there can be no question of that. The fact that these passages do not mention the specific detail that the wicked will suffer for many hours or many days doesn't imply these passages should be ignored. Why would you think this?

The reason the wicked will suffer in proportion to their sins is not because God arbitrarily manufactures some punishment to cause them physical pain, but because the condemnation, as Ty Gibson points out, is organic to the sin itself. That the punishment is not manufactured (or "arbitrary") is brought out by DA 764.



These questions have been answered. I can't understand why you just keep repeating the questions instead of responding to the post which addresses these questions. Why should I have to repeat myself? Please respond to my post!

Also, please respond to my questions (Bob).

1.How do you harmonize your ideas with DA 764?
2.Why do you think God is capable of acting in the way you think the judgment will play out?
3.How is your view different than the view EGW speaks of in GC 535-536?

??

If you read DA 764, and the preceding paragraphs (which quote from Mal. 3 and other similar passages), there's no question this passage is dealing with the same topic. So why should it be ignored? Especially in light of the fact that we have specific counsel to not ignore these passages?

Quote:
1. You can not answer a question about a "detail" in GC 672 regarding the "armies" of men and the "fury of God" as mentioned in that text - by avoiding the text or by going to some OTHER passage that makes no mention at all about the "fury of God" connected to the "armies of men".



Let us wildly "imagine" for a moment that you ever would address question 1 from the actual text of GC 672 and then showing your work "IN THE TEXT" to be sound you ADDED a few snippet quotes from elsewhere.

Sure that would be an example of a full scope response.

But your method so far has been to ignore the text of GC 672 entirely and point out that you would rather talk about some other chapter or book instead.

And when we go to those places -- we either find a discussion on the false doctrine of immortal soul, or eternal hell, or a discussion on free will, or the death of Christ on the cross etc.

All WONDERFUL topics by the way -- just not a real good excuse for ignoring the actual details in that question #1.

The point "remains" about #1 being unnanswered since it specifically asks for attention "to the text" -- and so far you seem to be interested in "anything BUT the text"

in Christ,

Bob

Quote:
2. You can not answer the "in the text" question about suffering "The full penalty of sin in the fires" detail found IN GC 672 by avoiding GC 672 entirely and going to other passages that do NOT mention that detail at all.



Hence my continuous effort to point to the "inconvenient details" of GC 672 that you are so anxious to avoid at all costs.

But the point remains. When a question is asked specifically about some detail IN GC 672 you are hard pressed to show a 672 rendering if you are stuck on "avoid 672 at all costs".

Not sure how you are going to solve that one.

Until then.. the point remains.



True. And in GC 672 we have several PAGES of DETAIL describing just HOW that 2nd death takes place.

How instructive then - that you find the need to avoid it.



My reluctance is to engage in the method "explain away the text by avoiding the text at all costs".

IF INSTEAD you were to offer "explain the text in detail showing the most accurate rendering and then ADD to that references from other passages showing how that renderring is also consistently applied" -- I would say "wonderful".

But your "let's start by ignoring the inconvenient text that we seek to explain away" solution - is something I have a hard time with -- right out of the gate.

in Christ,

Bob

well, if we are going to use that kind of reasoning, prove there is not an eternally burning hell using only


you are not allowed to use any other texts to explain these texts.

Can we "wildly imagine" that you will every respond to my post answering your questions? Is that even remotely possible?



Is there any possible way you can stop with these untrue assertions?

On what basis do you think it's OK to keep repeating things that you know are untrue? I've told you where my post is. The post responds to your questions. Why don't you respond to the post?



No, your reluctance is to do what the SOP said we should do, which is to consider all she has written on a subject. You steadfastly refuse to this, as well as refuse to answer questions asked of you, and also to consider posts which respond to your questions. Instead you shut your eyes and continue to assert your questions haven't been addressed.



The methodology you are suggesting is both contrary to common sense and contrary to inspired counsel.