PS - I realize this thread is concerned with the seven last plagues, but the fire which God used to punish and destroy the 250 seems fitting to discuss. Also, the following passage says the angels that pour out the plagues are dispatched from heaven and that they go out from the temple of God:

15:1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.
15:5 And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened:
15:6 And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.
15:7 And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever.
15:8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled.
16:1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

Are we supposed to interpret this to mean evil angels? Isn't it possible that these angels are holy angels?

My denseness must be getting in the way in understanding how you mean punishment could not be force or violence. Unless you mean punishment is something other than what is commonly understood. Could you elaborate?

Because what you wrote depicts force and violence.



Not necessarily. It depends on the form of the punishment. If the punishment consists of forceful and violent actions, it would be.



I think the same principles were at work here as in the Destruction of Jerusalem.





Those opposing Moses and Aaron thought they were in league with the devil. They sealed their doom by resisting the Holy Spirit, committing the unpardonable sin.

This is all similar to what happened to Christ. He was accused of working in league with the devil. Once one identifies the voice of God as the voice of Satan, there's nothing more God can do for such a one, as the means of communication has been cut off.

Yes, I think so (that this can be understood as referring to holy angels) but what God's wrath is would need to be understood.

Teresa, that's precisely the point about which I disagree with Tom's view. Sin is extremely dangerous because it spreads from mind to mind. God is the ruler of the universe. He cannot let sin go unchecked. This is not related to the plagues, but in the following passages Ellen White presents some concepts that apply to what we've been discussing.

About the flood:

In the destruction of the old world by a flood of waters, God gave evidence that men had exceeded the bounds prescribed through His long-sufferance. And whenever a people, with a "thus saith the Lord" to guide them, presume upon His mercy, and go decidedly counter to His will, despising all His warnings, they finally exceed the limits of grace. Then God interferes and vindicates the honor of His law. He represses the increase of unrighteousness, by blotting out the race who become indifferent to His law which had been made known to the inhabitants of the Noatic [world]. Thus the Lord reveals to the whole human family that it is possible to go so far in sin and disgraceful transgression of His law, that it becomes necessary for Him to limit human life, and interpose in His wrath to prevent their spoiling one another in continual disobedience and defiance of His law. {21MR 65.2}

About the apostasy at Sinai:

"Love no less than justice demanded that for this sin judgment should be inflicted. God is the guardian as well as the sovereign of his people. He cuts off those who are determined upon rebellion, that they may not lead others to ruin. In sparing the life of Cain, God had demonstrated to the universe what would be the result of permitting sin to go unpunished. The influence exerted upon his descendants by his life and teaching led to the state of corruption that demanded the destruction of the whole world by a flood. The history of the antediluvians testifies that long life is not a blessing to the sinner; God's great forbearance did not repress their wickedness. The longer men lived, the more corrupt they became. So with the apostasy at Sinai. Unless punishment had been speedily visited upon transgression, the same results would have again been seen. The earth would have become as corrupt as in the days of Noah. Had these transgressors been spared, evils would have followed greater than resulted from sparing the life of Cain. It was the mercy of God that thousands should suffer, to prevent the necessity of visiting judgment upon millions. In order to save the many, he must punish the few. ... It was necessary for the good of Israel, and was also a lesson to all succeeding generations, that crime should be promptly punished. And it was no less a mercy to the sinners themselves that they should be cut short in their evil course. Had their lives been spared, the same spirit that led them to rebel against God would have been manifested in hatred and strife among themselves, and they would have eventually destroyed one another. It was in love to the world, in love to Israel, and even to the transgressors, that crime was punished with swift and terrible severity." {RH, February 11, 1909 par. 18, 19}

Since sin entered the universe, there is dirty work to be done. Sin must be dealt with. But if there is dirty work to be done, God takes the responsibility for it. He doesn't use Satan to do the dirty work for Him. This reminds me of the Jews. They use gentiles to do for them the things that they think would make them transgress the Sabbath. Their reasoning is the following: since the gentiles are already lost, they cannot become more lost than they already are. So they can transgress the law instead of the Jews, and do what the Jews need to be done but cannot themselves do. Well, God does not act like that. If there is dirty work to be done, God does not use Satan to do it for Him. And, in case He does use nature, it is just as a tool to fulfill His purposes.
Of course there are occasions when people's attitudes force Him to leave them to their own ways. But this should be distinguished from what is described above. There are occasions when God Himself intervenes to punish sin.

There's no need to disagree with my view on account of this! I agree completely with this.

I think where we actually disagree is the mechanism involved by which sin is checked. This goes along with Teresa's point, in regards to asking how does God destroy. It's actually the same point.

I believe that God has to take action to prevent the destruction that would take place (because of the effects of sin) were He to stop taking these actions. So God does not prevent sin from going on unchecked by ceasing to take the actions which prevent the destruction that sin results in.

To put it another way, God destroys by withdrawing His protection in some way. It could in regards to some natural function, such as a function of the human body, or it could be some phenomena of nature, or it could be releasing protection in regards to evil beings, either heavenly or earthly.



There's a number of problems with this analogy, but I'll deal with just one, as this is a fundamental difference. In the case of the Jews, they are willing for a given action to take place, such as the switching on of a light. In the case of God, He is willing that a given action *not* take place. He withdraws His protection to all some destruction to take place, which is contrary to His will. The "dirty work" is not something that God would have happen. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should repent. But if they refuse to repent, then the only alternative is to perish, not because of an arbitrary action God takes against them, but because this is the only alternative to choosing life, which is tantamount to choosing Christ, because life can only be found in Him.

One other point I'll mention is in regards to the "dirty work" that needs to be done. From your paradigm, this "dirty work" is something that needs to be done, or, if not, sin will continue unchecked. This is based on the idea that sin is basically innocuous. It has to be arbitrarily, or artificially, punished because simply withdrawing one's attention is not sufficient to cause the "dirty work" that needs to happen to happen.

But if we take the POV that God must be actively involved to counteract the ills that sin brings about of its own accord, then all that's necessary for God to do the "dirty work" is for God to cease the work He is doing to counteract the ills of sin.

I disagree. He is willing for a given action to take place - the restraint of sin, so that others may not be led to ruin.


I disagree. This is not based on the idea that sin is basically innocuous. The opposite is true. Sin is so dangerous that not restraining it in some cases may mean the perdition of many who could still be saved. In these occasions, simply withdrawing one's attention is not sufficient. The spread of sin must be immediately stopped. Ellen White says this clearly in the quotes I provided:

"Unless punishment had been speedily visited upon transgression, ... the earth would have become as corrupt as in the days of Noah. Had these transgressors been spared, evils would have followed greater than resulted from sparing the life of Cain. ... In order to save the many, he must punish the few. ... And it was no less a mercy to the sinners themselves that they should be cut short in their evil course. Had their lives been spared, the same spirit that led them to rebel against God would have been manifested in hatred and strife among themselves, and they would have eventually destroyed one another. It was in love to the world, in love to Israel, and even to the transgressors, that crime was punished with swift and terrible severity."

good questions!! i think the question is, how does God destroy, and how does He punish.

the lake of fire, from my undersanding is very real, but are the lost kept conscious in that lake, as those who believe in an immortal soul and eternal burning hell believe?

here is one pioneers understanding:

other pioneers, from what i have seen so far didnt go into what the pain and suffering was. they seemed to equate punishment with eternal death.

from a writer to the review and herald, which i thought was interesting in comparing how long one would suffer in the fire:

anothers thoughts:

If this is the action you had in mind that God is doing, then what you said previously doesn't make sense. Specifically:



It doesn't make any sense to suggest that God would use Satan to restrain sin for Him. This certainly isn't anything I'm suggesting.



In your "disagreement" you're agreeing with my point. You have the view that sin is basically innocuous, so some sort of artificial, imposed, manufactured, or arbitrary (however you want to label it) action must be taken against it because, in your view, God's simply ceasing from the actions He is taking to prevent the calamity that sin would cause is not sufficient.

Your characterization of God's activity as "simply withdrawing one's attention" falls far short of accurately describing God's activity. God doesn't simply "pay attention" to things, but is active to ensure that, for example, one doesn't die, or the earth's orbit doesn't go off course, that nature doesn't go off kilter, etc.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that God needed to take action, that something needed to be done to restrain sin, or to "speedily visit punishment upon transgression." The point I'm making is that God does not need to take violent action to achieve this purpose.

first, i need to clarify what i mean by reading carefully and prayerfully. having been a lone student of the bible/sop i read, i supposed, carefully and prayerfully and saw what there was. but over time i would see things in both i hadnt seen before. we all do that. but since being online and having to deal with certain types i had to really read carefully and prayerfully each word in a much more serious manner in order to counter certain understandings. i picked up a lot more faster than ever before.

many times im just as dense as you might be.

no.

i mean just what i said before. sorry if i havent been able to make it clear.

lets try this. it may or may not work. who were moses and aarong following and obeying? themselves and satan, or God?